trmnl_get_room_booking_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response is a stale mirror and last_synced_at reports its age. It omits error behavior (unknown calendar id) and any pagination or auth/profile caveats.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: purpose, then staleness behavior, then the HTTP endpoint. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Answers the last-synced mirror'), but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (current and upcoming bookings) and a freshness field. Remaining gaps — response shape details, not-found handling, the profile parameter — are modest but real.

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 50% and the nested path properties are already described ('Calendar id, as listRoomBookingCalendars answers it'). The API path template implies that installation_id and id scope the resource, but the description says nothing about the 'profile' parameter or how it interacts with the endpoint.

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 ('Read a calendar with its current and upcoming bookings') and explicitly distinguishes the cached read from the refetch sibling. An agent can tell what it gets back without opening the 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('refetchRoomBookingCalendar reads the source again') and gives the condition — this answers the last-synced mirror. Loses a point because the routing is phrased as a fact rather than a directive, and only one of several nearby calendar siblings (list/create/update/delete) is differentiated.

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