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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by stating what the tool shows (turnovers, assigned cleaners, gaps), which is useful beyond the structured fields. Non-critical omissions (e.g., output format) are acceptable given the simple read-only role.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with the essential parameter usage, achieving high information density.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned (turnovers, cleaners, gaps). It lacks explicit return structure, but this is not critical for such a straightforward lookup.

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%, and both parameter descriptions already explain property_id and days_ahead, including the default value. The description merely repeats 'Pass property_id and optional days_ahead (default 14)', adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('cleaning schedule and cleaner assignments'), and concrete outputs ('upcoming turnovers between bookings, assigned cleaners, and scheduling gaps'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rental_maintenance_schedule.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (checking cleaning schedule, turnovers, gaps) and provides parameter guidance, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_rental_maintenance_schedule. Clear context without exclusions warrants a 4.

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