Upcoming bookings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that both confirmed and pending bookings are included, that only common areas are covered, and that the window starts today. It does not discuss return format, pagination, or authorization requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the key scope, statuses, area examples, and time range immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, read-only list tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what bookings are returned and over what time horizon, and it need not explain return values because no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'days' parameter is already fully documented in the schema with its default, minimum, and maximum. The description mentions 'next N days', but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource (bookings), scope (common areas such as party room, BBQ, pool), statuses (confirmed and pending), and time window (today through the next N days). It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling tools unit_balance and arrears, though its domain is obviously different.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the scope: retrieve upcoming bookings over a forward-looking window. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as past bookings or other booking-related queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.