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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 31-day maximum per period, the requirement to supply at least one period (not expressed in the schema's required list), and a note about the key's access role gating attendance data. Return-shape/pagination detail is absent, but the limit parameter's schema text covers truncation.

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?

Front-loaded with the report's meaning, then the filtering rules, in three short clauses with no filler. The 'Role: the key's access to attendance data' fragment is slightly cryptic but still short and informative; the raw endpoint path is minor clutter.

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 7-parameter read-only report with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description supplies the key constraints an agent needs: at least one period, 31-day windows, and both bookings and events included by default. It leaves the relationship between the two period families (must both be supplied together?) and default behavior when a family is omitted unstated.

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 baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by adding constraints the schema does not state — the 31-day cap per period and the 'at least one period' rule that binds the four date parameters together. It also clarifies the two parallel period families (check-in vs reservation), which is the main source of misuse risk.

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 ('check-in report: who checked in to court bookings and events') and names the two filtering axes, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as courtreserve_whos_here or courtreserve_list_event_registrations, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

'Give at least one period' and 'by check-in period or reservation period (at most 31 days each)' give real preconditions for calling, which is more than most definitions offer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools (e.g. whos_here for live occupancy), so selection guidance remains inferred.

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