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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description earns credit for disclosing two things the annotations cannot: the required scope and the preview/unstable-contract warning ('may change without a version bump'), which is meaningful operational context.

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 purpose and followed by the prerequisite and the stability caveat. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition 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?

For a simple two-parameter read operation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, permission, and API stability. What is missing is any clarification of what a 'resource' is (staff, room, bookable item) and how the two IDs relate, which would fully close the gap.

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 carries the full burden for two required parameters, yet it says nothing about locationId or resourceId beyond their implicit presence. The schema's loc_/res_ prefix patterns are the only hint at format, and the description does not compensate for that gap or explain scoping behavior.

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+resource combination: fetches a single resource with its status and online-booking settings, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_resources / list_resource_groups operations. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 an access prerequisite (requires resources:read) which helps gate usage, but it never states when to prefer this over cliento_list_resources or when it should not be used (e.g., bulk retrieval). Usage is only implied by the singular 'one resource' phrasing.

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