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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement ('Needs a Floreal Workspace sign-in, which this connection does not have'), the success outcome when signed in, and the failure behavior (it explains 'what is wrong and how to fix it'). This is critical operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is three sentences, each adding distinct value: a critical constraint, the tool's output, and an actionable usage directive. It is front-loaded with the auth caveat, making the most important fact immediately visible. Slightly longer than the absolute minimum, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, the auth limitation, and what happens if called anyway. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation or proper handling of the response.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info. It appropriately focuses on behavior instead.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'returns occupancy, revenue and KPIs per day, month or year.' This is a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('occupancy, revenue and KPIs'), making the purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like day_summary, which could partially overlap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Call it anyway when the user asks for this: it answers with what is wrong and how to fix it.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool despite the known auth failure. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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