easytable_find_bookings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating what is returned (each booking's id plus a summary), which is genuine value beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address empty-result behavior or auth/rate limits.

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?

Two tightly written sentences; the core lookup action is front-loaded and the second sentence delivers the return-value and cross-tool routing information with zero waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully characterizes the return (id plus summary), and required inputs are fully covered by the schema. It omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when no bookings match the mobile number, leaving a minor gap.

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 schema already documents restaurant id, mobile (E.164), and lang. The description only restates the mobile-number input, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) plus resource (existing bookings) scoped to a restaurant and a given mobile number. It clearly differentiates from siblings like create/modify/cancel by naming the lookup role and pointing to easytable_cancel_booking as the consumer of the returned ids.

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?

Implies the when-to-use context by noting the returned id feeds into easytable_cancel_booking, making the lookup-then-cancel flow apparent. However, it gives no explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance (e.g. when to use this versus a broader listing call).

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