get_booking_history

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

Even though readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already cover the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the reported gym zone may be assumed, history availability is not exhaustive, labels never establish attendance, and source names are untrusted. This meaningfully goes beyond the 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?

Each of the four sentences carries a distinct, necessary piece of information: action/ordering, zone assumption, availability limitation, and source trust caveat. It is dense but free of filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers ordering, limitations, and trust semantics, and an output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. However, it does not state what happens when the optional gymId is omitted, and it never explicitly ties the 'reported gym zone' to the gymId parameter, leaving a small but real 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 0%, and the description never names or explains gymId. The phrase 'reported gym zone' only indirectly relates to the input, so the agent gets little help beyond the schema's field name and pattern. With only one optional parameter, a direct link between the behavior and gymId was needed.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('the account holder's available historical booking view'), with ordering ('newest first') and scope ('at a verified gym'). The 'historical' framing also clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_upcoming_bookings.

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 implies the tool is for historical booking views and provides useful context about verified gyms and the reported gym zone, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. Selection logic is left to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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