check_availability_and_list_bookings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication via cookie/env var and returns an availability summary, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, pagination for large result sets, or what happens when resource_ids is null. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably concise with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as separate documentation. Some sentences like 'If not provided, looks for DISH_COOKIE env var.' are useful but could be more elegantly integrated.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic context but has significant gaps. It mentions authentication and return type, but doesn't explain the availability summary format, error handling, or query constraints. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description should provide more operational context for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some parameter context: datetime_range is for the query, resource_ids are optional room IDs, cookie is for authentication with fallback to env var, and ctx is a context object. However, it doesn't explain the DatetimeRange structure (start/end datetime), format expectations, or what happens when resource_ids is null. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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's purpose: 'Check room availability for the DiSH API and list bookings for a room and date range.' This specifies both the action (check availability and list bookings) and the resource (room). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like book_room or cancel_booking, which are clearly different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions checking availability and listing bookings, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is appropriate versus using book_room or cancel_booking. The only usage context is implicit through the tool's name and purpose.

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