Get Schedule (arrivals / departures / turnovers)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by specifying the content of the schedule (arrivals, departures, stays, turnovers) and the scope (all properties or one). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('operational schedule'), followed by a concise enumeration of result types and a key usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 relatively simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: the data returned, the date-range scope, and the optional property filter. It lacks details on response structure or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and the strength of annotations, it is complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions and examples. The description reinforces that property_id is optional and that the tool can operate across all properties, but it does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('operational schedule') and clearly states what the tool returns: arrivals, departures, stay-throughs, and turnovers for a date range. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the all-properties or single-property scope and the 'one call' convenience, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 clearly implies when to use: to retrieve the operational schedule for a date range, optionally filtered to one property. The phrase 'One call — no need to pass property ids' explicitly guides the agent on a key usage scenario, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like list_bookings or get_availability.

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