Compare booking settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the first scenario serves as baseline with every other scenario reporting delta, and the 'Important' note explains that recovered minutes are an upper bound and the tool deliberately does not pick a winner. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a lead purpose sentence, an example question, an 'Args' block, and an 'Important' callout. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy. It's longer than a single line, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy load. It covers the return format (comparison table with dead time, delta, fragmentation rate, optional hourlyRate valuation), the baseline behavior, and the upper-bound caveat. Combined with 100% schema coverage, this is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds crucial semantics: the scenarios array structure with optional fields and fallback behavior ('Any omitted field falls back to the top-level setting'), and the baseline/delta interpretation. This is essential for correct invocation and interpretation beyond what the raw schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Re-run the gap analysis under several booking configurations and compare how much structural dead time each one produces.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like booking_gap_analyze (single analysis) and booking_gap_profile, and it includes a concrete example question ('if I allowed 30-minute bookings instead of 60...').

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 establishes clear context: it's for comparing configurations and answering 'what-if' questions. It references booking_gap_analyze for the input data, implying the single-analysis alternative. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to compare, use booking_gap_analyze when you need one configuration'—an explicit exclusion would earn a 5.

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