trmnl_list_room_booking_calendars

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail the annotations cannot: the returned identifiers are composite "<kind>:<number>" strings and every synced calendar of any kind appears. It omits ordering, pagination, and what an installation with no calendars returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and the id-format note is a compact, high-value addition. The trailing "TRMNL GET /api/apps/..." line is routing trivia that adds little for an agent, and the id-format sentence is slightly run-on.

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 usefully substitutes by describing the shape of the returned calendar ids and which calendars are included. For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient; only edge cases (empty installation, pagination) are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 50%: installation_id is documented in the schema and profile is documented but the description says nothing about either. The phrase "of a room booking installation" gestures at installation_id, but the `profile` parameter (which profile/config context to target) is left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries most of the weight.

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 first sentence is a clean verb+resource ("List the calendars of a room booking installation") and the second narrows the scope to iCal plus synced Google/Microsoft calendars, which is more precise than the bare tool name. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the singular siblings (trmnl_get_room_booking_calendar, trmnl_list_room_booking_calendar_screens), so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

"A calendar id is ... and is what the other calendar operations take" effectively tells the agent to call this first to obtain ids for get/update/delete/refetch. It gives clear context for when the tool is needed but states no exclusions or failure conditions (e.g. what to do for a nonexistent installation).

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