Occupancy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the verdict logic and the restOfDay output, which adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly label the operation as read-only or disclose any latency, privacy, or edge-case behaviors.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second adds necessary detail about verdict values and restOfDay. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the parameter schema is complete, the description sufficiently explains the tool's primary outputs and verdict logic. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying when to use it relative to forecast, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it is present.

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?

The single optional parameter 'club' is 100% documented in the schema, including its format and default behavior, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra parameter insight, but the schema already covers it fully.

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 what the tool returns: live headcount, a go-now verdict, and typical counts for the rest of today. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forecast by focusing on current occupancy and today's remaining hours, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 use when current occupancy or a go-now recommendation is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over forecast or other siblings. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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