connects_rooms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying the specific capability boundary (no booking/canceling) and the breadth of read modes available, going slightly beyond the generic annotation signals.

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?

Two short sentences, both informative, with the capability list front-loaded and the key limitation following immediately. No filler, no redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 an 8-parameter multi-view tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too sparse to fully guide construction of specialized queries such as pagination or capacity filters. However, all parameters are optional with defaults, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description provides a viable minimum for selecting and initially invoking the tool.

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, but it only loosely maps 'filters/details/reservations' to the view modes. It does not explain day, limit, offset, room_id, capacity, duration, or time_of_day, leaving most of the 8 parameters semantically unexplained.

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 identifies the resource (rooms) and the supported read operations (availability, filters, details, reservations), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting events, groups, courses, or people. It lacks a single crisp verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the capability list is concrete and the explicit exclusion of booking/canceling sharpens the scope.

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?

It explicitly states what the tool cannot do ('Cannot book or cancel rooms'), which is an important exclusion that prevents misuse. However, it does not name alternative tools or state exactly when to choose this tool over a sibling, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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