List bookings

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: required scopes, 'data sensitivity: full_content', and the workspace-override default. It omits any note on pagination/truncation behavior at the description level, though maxPages in the schema partially covers that.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then compact metadata lines. Some lines ('Does not require idempotency') are near-redundant with the idempotentHint annotation, but nothing is verbose.

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 annotations, an output schema, and nested query schema already present, the description's remaining job is auth/scope and default-workspace context, which it supplies. The one real gap is filter value semantics for status and upcoming.

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 75% and the description names limit, cursor, status, upcoming, workspaceId and workspaceSlug, but never explains what values status/upcoming accept (no enums) and omits leadId entirely. It repeats schema-known parameter names rather than adding filter 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 bookings') and even names the underlying operation (GET /api/bookings), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as luca_bookings_brief, luca_bookings_get, or luca_bookings_lifecycle_attention.

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?

It gives useful preconditions (scope bookings:read, luca:read) and tells the agent how to override the default workspace, but it never says when to choose this list over sibling retrieval tools like luca_bookings_get or luca_bookings_brief. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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