Check if a business has availability on a specific date using their Bezal calendar. Best-effort — only works for businesses that use the calendar feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| business_id | Yes | Business UUID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It honestly discloses 'best-effort' behavior and the dependency on the calendar feature, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the return value or what happens when a business does not use the calendar, leaving ambiguity.
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 concise sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds an important caveat, both earning their place.
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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and major limitation. It lacks return-format details, but 'availability' is a reasonably clear concept. Slightly under-specified for the no-output-schema case, hence 4.
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%, with both parameters already described ('ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)' and 'Business UUID'). The description adds little beyond 'specific date', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('business availability on a specific date using their Bezal calendar'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_businesses or get_business by focusing on a date-specific availability query.
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 states when to use the tool (availability check for a business on a particular date) and provides a key limitation ('only works for businesses that use the calendar feature'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The three legacy aliases (get_provider_details, search_providers, submit_quote_request) are exact duplicates of existing tools, creating direct ambiguity. The three search tools (search_businesses, search_by_city, search_by_service) overlap somewhat, though descriptions help clarify their focus.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_business, list_categories, compare_businesses). Minor deviations include the 'search_by_*' variants and legacy aliases with different noun choices (provider vs. business), but these are still readable and consistent in style.
13 tools is within a reasonable range for a business intelligence server, but 3 are redundant legacy aliases, reducing the effective unique tool count to 10. The count is appropriate but slightly inflated by the aliases.
The server covers core workflows: searching, retrieving profiles, reviews, services, availability, comparisons, and service requests. Minor gaps exist, such as no booking capability and limited filtering options, but the primary use case is well served.
