shelf_bookings_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'overlapping' semantics (vs. fully-contained ranges), a genuine behavioral detail, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple read tool, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with no output schema and 80% schema coverage, the essentials are present. But the description omits any routing guidance against shelf_list_bookings and does not explain how search/statuses interact with the date range.

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 80%, so the schema already documents start, end, orgId, and statuses. The description's 'ISO 8601 dates' merely restates the schema's 'ISO date/time' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it. 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 resource (bookings) and scope (overlapping a date range), so the agent knows what it retrieves. However, it offers no differentiation from the very close sibling shelf_list_bookings, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as shelf_list_bookings. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'overlapping a date range'.

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