Мои брони в офисе

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: empty date means today, bookings are returned starting from that date (not just that date), and the tool cannot cancel parking. It also clarifies the MyT domain (not bank). This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 three short, focused paragraphs: purpose/scope, date behavior, and limitation. Each sentence contributes distinct value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, how the parameter behaves, and a key limitation. The agent has enough to invoke it 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?

The input schema only defines an optional string 'date' with a default, but the description fully explains the semantics: empty date = today, and the tool returns bookings starting from that date, not only for that date. This entirely compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 the tool returns office bookings (parking, workspace, lockers) and explicitly says 'Возвращает брони' (returns bookings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by scope (office bookings vs. calendar events or parking place availability).

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 explains the date semantics and one-call sufficiency, and explicitly states it cannot cancel parking bookings, directing users to the MyT app. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like parking_book or calendar_cancel, relying on contextual implication.

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