Forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating the data is a 100-day rolling average and expressed in club-local time, which clarifies computation method and timezone handling. It does not mention output structure, but an output schema exists, so that gap is covered elsewhere.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and the two most important behavioral nuances: rolling averages and club-local time. There is no wasted text or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns and how the parameters affect the result. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling occupancy tool, but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the busy pattern is in club-local time, which affects how the 'day' and 'club' parameters should be interpreted. This is a useful semantic addition, though most parameter details are already fully documented in the schema.

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 provides a typical hourly busy pattern for a day, based on 100-day rolling averages and club-local time. This is distinct from the sibling tools, especially occupancy, because it describes a historical/typical pattern rather than a current state, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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?

The description implies usage for planning or understanding expected busyness rather than real-time occupancy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like occupancy. There is no exclusion or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer context from the word 'typical' and the sibling names.

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