get_booking_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' and count categories imply a read operation and define the core output, but the description does not disclose default range behavior, authentication requirements, or whether counts are scoped globally or per amenity.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase adds meaningful information about resource and metric types.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers the resource and returned count categories. It lacks default behavior and scope details, but the low complexity and complete parameter schema make it sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema fully describes the sole optional parameter with enum and 'Time range' description, so schema coverage is 100%; description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning baseline 3.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'get' and identifies resource 'amenity booking statistics' plus metric categories (booked, completed, waitlisted counts), clearly distinguishing from sibling list_booked_slots which would provide raw booking data. It precisely conveys what the tool returns.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like list_booked_slots or get_issue_stats. The name and phrasing imply aggregate statistics, but no when-to-use or exclusions are stated.

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