Staff member or station

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful domain context that a resource can be either a staff member or a station, but it does not explain caching behavior tied to the fresh parameter or what details are returned.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The essential purpose is front-loaded, and the domain clarification follows immediately.

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?

This is a simple read-only lookup with rich annotations and fully described parameters, so the description is mostly adequate. However, for a 'details' tool with no output schema, it does not indicate what kind of details are returned, leaving a minor gap in expectations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Resource id' label by clarifying that the resource may represent a staff member or a station, which helps the agent understand what identifier to supply.

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 that the tool returns details for one staff member or station, and clarifies that both are resources in Booksy. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as team_resources, but the verb+resource purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like team_resources or resource_upcoming_bookings. The agent must infer that this is the single-resource lookup tool from the name and description alone.

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