easytable_find_bookings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (booking id and summary) and connects it to cancellation, but it does not disclose things like ordering, pagination, or match behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core action, includes the key parameter, and states the return value. No filler or repetition exists.

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 read-only lookup tool with 3 fully documented parameters, the description covers the purpose, the key input, and the return value. It omits exact response structure, but the summary of 'booking id plus a summary' is enough for an agent to decide to call it, especially with no output schema and straightforward behavior.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the 'mobile' parameter's purpose but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('restaurant's existing bookings made with a given mobile number'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like create, modify, cancel, and list date/type/time tools. It also states what is returned (booking id and summary), giving the agent an actionable purpose.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to find existing bookings by mobile numberware, and it explains the id is 'for easytable_cancel_booking', which hints at a downstream use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares against other lookup siblings like easytable_list_types or easytable_list_dates.

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