list_team_bookings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. However, it only states the core action without mentioning whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what the response format looks like, or whether there are any side effects. The description does not contradict any annotations (as none exist), but it leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence of nine words, which is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, but it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity – for example, noting the team scope to differentiate from 'list_bookings'. The structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool is relatively simple (1 parameter, no enums, has output schema), a 3-sentence description might be sufficient. The description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks differentiation from siblings (especially 'list_bookings') and does not leverage the existence of an output schema to describe what is returned. An agent may not understand the team-centric scope without additional context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the team_id parameter refers to the team whose event type bookings are being listed. However, it does not explain what 'bookings for a team's event types' means – e.g., whether these are bookings made by team members or bookings on team event types. Still, it adds enough context beyond the terse schema description ('Team ID') to warrant a 4.

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 'List all bookings for a team's event types' uses a specific verb ('list') and identifies the resource ('bookings for a team's event types'). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_bookings' (which likely lists individual bookings) or 'list_team_event_types' (which lists event types, not bookings). The differentiation from 'list_bookings' is implied by the 'team' qualifier but not explicitly addressed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tool 'list_bookings' exists, an agent would benefit from knowing whether to use 'list_team_bookings' for team-scoped bookings and 'list_bookings' for personal/organization-level bookings. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite instructions.

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