Staff and stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful framing about the dual-resource data model, but says nothing about the local cache that the 'fresh' parameter implies, which is the one behavior an agent might get wrong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, then domain context, then the filter hint. No filler, though the middle sentence about Booksy's resource model could have been folded into the first.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is adequate but thin: the agent is not told what a resource record contains or how to follow up with resource_details, and the caching behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the effect of 'kind' and adds no format or default details beyond the enum, and ignores 'fresh' entirely.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('Staff members and stations') and explains the domain quirk that Booksy models both as resources, so an agent can distinguish this collection tool from siblings like resource_details or staff_schedule. The list/retrieve verb is only implied by the noun phrase, which keeps it 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?

'Use kind to narrow the list' tells the agent how to filter but never when this tool is the right choice versus resource_details, staff_schedule, or time_off_entries. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving selection to inference.

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