report_occupancy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation formula, the data source (calendar reads), and what the report is not. It does not describe side effects, permissions, or edge-case behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'computed from calendar reads.'

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 short sentences, each adding information: what is computed, how occupancy is calculated, how blocked holes are defined, and what is excluded. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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?

The description thoroughly explains the report's content and exclusions, but it lacks parameter semantics and return-format details. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent still has to infer what the report response looks like and how the optional listingId changes the result.

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%, and the description does not mention startDate, endDate, or listingId at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, and the formula implies a date-range-based calculation, but the description does not clarify required vs optional usage, date formats, or how listingId affects results.

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 states a specific resource and computed metrics: occupancy and blocked holes from calendar reads. The formula for occupancy and the definition of blocked holes make the purpose unambiguous. It also adds negative scope ('Not an owner statement. No financials.') which helps distinguish it from financial or owner-facing reports, though it does not name sibling tools directly.

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 context is clear: use this tool when occupancy or blocked-hole metrics are needed. The negative statements ('Not an owner statement. No financials.') provide explicit exclusions. However, no sibling alternative is named, so an agent must infer which other report tool to choose instead.

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