podyx_list_room

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful read behavior (prices are independently paginated, amounts are configured rates rather than dated customer quotes, follow all pagination). But it also spends sentences on mutation semantics (archive/restore, Idempotency-Key, authority, '[] clears the collection') that do not apply to a read-only list endpoint and muddy the picture.

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, but the remainder is a dense run-on mixing catalog architecture jargon ('JSON normalization, versioning, links... lifecycle') with write-path rules irrelevant to a list call. Several sentences earn nothing for an agent trying to invoke this tool, and the useful pagination guidance is buried.

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?

There is no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, so the description is the only documentation for a ten-parameter nested query. It covers view and price pagination adequately but omits the three UUID filters and include_inactive, which an agent needs to filter correctly.

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 0% across ten nested query parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains view=authoring vs offers and prices_page/prices_per_page and the meaning of amounts, but never explains room_id, setup_id, service_id, page, per_page or include_inactive filters, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 opening 'List catalog rooms GET /api/v2/rooms' gives a specific verb, resource and endpoint, so the basic purpose is unmistakable. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling podyx_v1_list_rooms, leaving the agent to guess which room listing to call.

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 view semantics ('Authoring includes drafts; view=offers reuses customer buyability') implicitly tell an agent which view to pick for which task. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing advice against the v1 sibling or podyx_get_room for single-room needs.

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