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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the no-booking-page case returns the single link where the user creates one, and workspace pinning silently changes whose page is read. That scope-substitution behavior is exactly the kind of thing an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core read action, then the enumerated return contents, then the two edge behaviors. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing returned fields and covering both the empty-state link and workspace-scoped reads. Minor gap: it never addresses running as a different person via the `person` parameter, and it does not hint at response shape or formatting beyond field names.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description explains the effect of workspace scoping but never mentions the `person` parameter (run as someone else), and does not tie its scoping language explicitly to the `project` field.

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 ("Read the member's own booking page") and then enumerates the exact payload: booking link, time zone, weekly working hours, booking on/off, and meeting types with lengths. An agent can tell this apart from the write-side sibling (connections_schedule_set_booking_hours) and from connections_schedule_get_focus_day purely from the description.

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?

Gives a concrete invocation condition: when the chat is pinned to a workspace, this reads that workspace's booking page rather than the member's own. It does not state when-not-to-use or name an alternative tool for related questions (e.g. setting hours), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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