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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral context. It does not disclose output format, aggregation behavior, date range handling, required authentication (orgSlug, apiKey), or whether the operation has side effects. The description only states the calculation intent, leaving the agent without critical operational details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the action and resource. It contains no redundant text or filler, making it maximally concise for the information it does provide.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It omits essential context such as the meaning of the required orgSlug, date range constraints, how grouping affects results, and what the occupancy rate calculation includes. The tool is moderately complex, and the description does not adequately cover that complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It only rephrases the groupBy enum values ('provider, day, or week') and does not explain the meaning or formatting of dateFrom, dateTo, providerId, orgSlug, or apiKey. The agent cannot correctly populate parameters based on the description alone.

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 specific verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'provider occupancy rates', which distinguishes it from sibling report tools like report_revenue and report_no_shows. It also mentions the grouping dimensions (provider, day, week), aligning with the schema enum and further clarifying the tool's scope.

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 calculating occupancy rates over a period, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative report tools like report_revenue or report_no_shows. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another report would be more appropriate, so usage guidance is only implied.

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