get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it 'fetches' data; it does not mention response format or any operational constraints. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds little beyond them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without any wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 complete schema and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not outline the response structure (e.g., what fields availability/pricing include). The absence of sibling differentiation also leaves some ambiguity, but the high-level resource description covers the core purpose.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all three parameters (listingId, from, to). The description does not add any extra parameter-level detail, so it delivers no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'calendar availability and pricing for a listing over a date range.' It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_calendar_blocks or get_listing_pricing, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to retrieve calendar availability and pricing for a date range) but provides no explicit exclusions or mentions of alternative tools. It gives clear context without when-not guidance.

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