calendar_list_rooms

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data is IT-synced cache rather than a live Workspace lookup, it can be empty, the refresh script is named, and it is auto-approved. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the cache caveat, then the routing to sibling tools. No sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, and it covers freshness/staleness, availability-check workflow, and booking workflow. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 both parameters including the query filter semantics are already documented in the schema. The description's list of returned fields (name, email, building, floor, capacity) describes output rather than input semantics, so it adds no parameter meaning. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List meeting rooms and resource calendars') plus the scope ('organization's room directory'), and it is clearly distinguishable from calendar_list_calendars and calendar_list_events. An agent can identify the tool's output domain without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: it names calendar_get_free_busy for availability checks and calendar_create_event / calendar_update_event for booking, and it warns the list is a locally-cached snapshot that may be empty. When-to-use, when-not, and follow-up tools are all stated.

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