who_is_staying

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the active-stay filter (arrival <= on_date < departure), the default of today, and the internal '~year' lookback limitation. This is transparent about both output semantics and data freshness constraints, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, row structure, and behavior/default. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy. The most critical information (what it shows) comes first, and the internal limitation is placed at the end without clutter.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output shape, default behavior, and a key limitation (~year lookback). Given the presence of an output schema (even though not shown) and the single optional parameter, nothing essential is missing. An agent can call this correctly with the information provided.

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 schema only provides a nullable on_date with no description. The description clarifies that on_date defaults to today and that it's used to determine which stays are active, effectively explaining the parameter's role. It stops short of specifying the date format (e.g., ISO 8601), but given the low schema coverage, this is strong compensation.

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 'Show who is currently staying in each property (in-house guests)' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It further clarifies scope with 'one row per active stay' and the date condition, making its purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't name a sibling, the purpose is distinct enough on its own.

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 implies usage ('Defaults to today') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_bookings or find_guest. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the selection to inference from its unique 'in-house guests' framing.

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