upc_library_rooms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — paginated results and 'real IDs' (usable downstream) — but says nothing about auth/session requirements or what a room record contains.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. Slightly telegraphic ('one building/date', 'real IDs') but every clause carries information.

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?

Six parameters with no output schema; the description covers the read scope and pagination but leaves the returned room fields and whether availability is included unspecified. Adequate for a listing tool, but thin given the breadth of the library sibling set.

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 83%, so the schema already documents date format, floor, limit, offset and building_id. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema apart from the 'real IDs' note, which is about output, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read floors and rooms' scoped to 'one building/date'. The scope qualifier distinguishes it from a global room search, though it never names which sibling (e.g. upc_library_seats, upc_library_filters) covers the adjacent cases.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'one building/date' hints that a building_id and date must be known up front, and 'real IDs' faintly implies these IDs feed later calls, but neither is stated as a routing rule against the many sibling tools.

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