my_bookings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't clarify authentication requirements (implied 'your'), result limits, ordering, pagination, or how 'upcoming' is defined, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a list tool.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates the temporal scope. No 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 annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to describe ordering, limits, and what a booking entry contains. It covers the essential scope but leaves return format and behavior unspecified.

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%, documenting include_past and its default fully. The description adds the '(or recent past)' hint but no syntax or edge cases beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (your bookings) with temporal scope clarified in parentheses. Differentiates implicitly from siblings like get_room_schedule or search_available_rooms, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative to check for conflicts.

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 the tool name and 'your bookings' phrasing (for the calling user's own reservations), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. list_rooms or get_room_schedule, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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