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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the date-range cap of at most 31 days, grouping by UTC day, and an explicit privacy/scope guarantee that it never returns member, trainer, service, attendance, or other participation details. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures not present in 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?

Two direct, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose and range limit; the second lists exclusions. Every clause 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?

For a read-only aggregation tool with full parameter schema, output schema, and annotations covering safety, this description covers scope, data returned, exclusions, and range limit. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-parameter constraint 'over a range of at most 31 days', which constrains startTime/endTime and the 'one tenant-owned' requirement for gymId, adding value 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?

The description states a specific verb (count), resource (scheduled records), scope (one tenant-owned GymFlexa gym, date range), and explicitly declares what it never returns, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gym_availability or get_gym_payment_summary.

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 clearly implies usage for aggregate administrative counts over a date range and explicitly lists what it never returns, guiding agents away for detailed data. However, it does not name any alternative sibling tool or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenarios, 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.