List bookings

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses ordering ('newest schedule dates first within the filter'), returned content (customer, address, assigned providers, total, charged status), a key exclusion (cancelled bookings are not listed), and pagination behavior ('Page with next_cursor'). These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent needs in order to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 compact and front-loads the resource scope before listing ordering, filters, exclusions, and pagination. The opening status fragment is slightly redundant with the schema enum, but it does not materially bloat the definition.

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 an eight-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context about what is returned, how results are ordered, what is excluded, and how pagination works. Combined with the annotations and fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents all eight parameters at 100% coverage, including defaults, formats, and enum meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the filter categories but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 that this tool lists bookings and scopes the resource with statuses, ordering, included fields, filters, and an exclusion for cancelled bookings. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_booking or cancel_booking, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with read siblings such as get_booking.

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 phrases like 'as the Bookings page shows them' and by the available filters, which tells an agent this is the list-oriented read tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_booking or other list tools, and no stated when-not-to-use conditions.

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