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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to what the description adds: the status vocabulary ('external', 'blocked'), the source=feed name convention, and the default and maximum range constraints. It stops short of describing ordering, timezone, or pagination behavior.

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 payload is front-loaded (what ranges mean, then what populates them, then defaults and limits) and every clause carries information. It is dense—one long sentence with parentheticals—but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure need not be documented, yet the description still explains the status/source semantics an agent needs to interpret results. Defaults and hard limits are covered; only minor gaps like timezone and endpoint inclusivity remain.

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 only 33% (only apartment_id is documented), so from/to rely on the description. It usefully supplies the default window and the 366-day maximum span for those parameters, but adds nothing on formatting, inclusivity of endpoints, or how the range interacts with apartment_id.

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 the specific resource returned (occupied check-in/check-out date ranges) and immediately scopes it: direct reservations, imported iCal nights, and owner-blocked dates. The 'no guest data' qualifier distinguishes it from list_reservations/list_blocks without needing to open any schema.

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 default window (today through +365 days) and the 366-day range cap imply usage for availability/calendar queries, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance is given (e.g., versus list_blocks or list_reservations with filters).

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