calcom_list_bookings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond structured data: no pagination behavior, no result limits, no default time window, and no note about what the API key must have access to.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification for a networked listing operation.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema is fully documented, but with no output schema the agent still doesn't know the response shape, whether results are paginated or capped, or what the default ordering is. For a list tool that often returns large result sets, this is a meaningful gap.

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%, with 'status' already documented as 'Filter by status (upcoming, past, cancelled, ...)' and api_key documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the optional status filter and adds no format, default, or combination semantics.

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 and resource ('List Cal.com bookings'), which is clearly distinguishable from the other Cal.com siblings (calcom_me, calcom_list_event_types). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly-named booking listers from other vendors, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by status' hints at usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that an API key scoped to the org is needed), and no statement about scope such as whose bookings are returned.

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