trmnl_get_room_booking

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the disclosure that the response is an aggregate snapshot and that OAuth account linking happens out-of-band in a browser, not through this tool. It does not describe permissions or rate limits, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the verb+resource and the returned contents, ending with the underlying endpoint. Minor waste in the slightly awkward clause "which devices show one," but overall efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned dimensions (connections, calendar/collection counts, bound devices, billing state) and the out-of-band account-linking prerequisite. The only real gap is the undocumented `profile` parameter for what is otherwise a simple two-parameter read.

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 50%: installation_id is documented in the schema as coming from listAppInstallations, but the `profile` parameter is never mentioned in the description and its default/selection semantics are left entirely to the schema. The description adds no meaning about either parameter.

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?

"Read a room booking installation" gives a specific verb and resource, and the following sentence enumerates what the read returns (connections, calendars/collections, devices, billing). This implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like trmnl_get_room_booking_settings or trmnl_get_room_booking_billing, but those siblings are never named, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied as an overview/status read, and the note that Google/Microsoft accounts are connected in the browser is a useful prerequisite hint. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this aggregate call over the granular siblings (settings, billing, calendar list) or any stated exclusions.

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