list_bookings

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and non-destructive intent, and the description adds meaningful context: bookings are scoped to the current team, attendee names/emails come back masked, and statuses carry workflow semantics (pending = approval queue). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct useful information: scope/order, item fields, filter capabilities, typical use, and masking behavior. The description is well front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 read-only list operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description adequately covers entity type, included fields, filtering, ordering, identification, and privacy masking. Pagination and sort details are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 input schema fully describes all 9 optional parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat per-parameter detail. It adds only a high-level filter summary and a bookingId reference for downstream use, which doesn't deepen parameter understanding 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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource '1:1 bookings of the current team', with a clarifying parenthetical about discovery calls/consultations and the default order. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_leads and list_records without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Provides a concrete typical use case ('status "pending" lists the approval queue waiting on someone') and summarizes filtering options, giving an agent a clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for mutating bookings, so it stops short of a 5.

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