Occupied check-in/check-out date ranges, no guest data. Defaults to today through +365 days; the range cannot exceed 366 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| apartment_id | No | Restrict to one apartment. Must belong to this account. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it returns only occupied ranges, excludes guest data, and enforces a 365-day default and 366-day maximum range. It does not describe authorization or error behavior, but these are less critical given the read-only hint.
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 compact, front-loads the core resource, and includes only high-value constraints. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
The default range, maximum range, and 'no guest data' boundary cover the most important operational context. The apartment restriction is in the schema, and the output schema exists, so the description is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only availability endpoint.
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 low for from/to, and the description only partially compensates by explaining the default range and maximum span. It does not explicitly map 'from' and 'to' parameters to the date range or clarify accepted formats, so an agent still has to infer some parameter meaning.
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 the resource ('occupied check-in/check-out date ranges') and a key boundary ('no guest data'), which distinguishes it from guest-centric tools like list_reservations or get_reservation. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so the agent must infer the operation from the tool name.
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 provides default date behavior and a length constraint, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_reservation or list_reservations. The only indirect clue is 'no guest data,' which is not enough to direct tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.