List event bookings

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: outputs are redacted to names by default, and email addresses only appear when include_contact_details is set. It does not mention pagination defaults or 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 short sentences with no filler. The returned content is front-loaded and the privacy condition follows, so the most important scoping fact is not buried.

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 zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers output contents, the mapping of bookers to tickets, and the default redaction behavior. Missing pagination expectations (max_pages default of 2) and result ordering, but these are largely documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, including the redaction behavior of include_contact_details. The description restates that flag's effect but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (bookings/candidates on events) and enumerates the returned fields: booker, ticket, status, dates. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which cover organisations, members, and events, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this tool over an alternative, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only conditional statement concerns include_contact_details, which is parameter behavior rather than usage routing.

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