Modulos Demo Booking

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

The description notes it 'Returns a confirmation on success', which adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true indicates a write operation). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral insight, though it could elaborate on side effects like whether the slot becomes permanently unavailable.

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: first states purpose, second adds a critical constraint and outcome. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous information.

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 booking tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, a key constraint, and expected return. It could mention idempotency or error behavior, but given annotations (idempotentHint=false), the agent has enough context to use it correctly.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds extra meaning for startTime: 'exactly as returned by list_demo_slots', which is crucial for correct usage. This goes beyond the schema description and helps the agent.

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 'Books a specific demo time slot', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like list_demo_slots and request_demo by specifying that startTime must come from list_demo_slots, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent that startTime must be an ISO-8601 string from list_demo_slots, setting a clear prerequisite. It implies when to use this tool (after listing slots), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the prerequisite.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the returned content (short description and URL). No contradictions. With annotations present, the description provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences only: one describing what it does and one providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description completely covers purpose, return content, and usage context. Agent has all needed information.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rules. Description does not need to add parameter info.

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 returns a description of Modulos and a booking demo URL. It distinguishes from siblings that handle booking actions (book_demo_slot, list_demo_slots, request_demo) by being informational.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first if the user asks what Modulos is or how to talk to the team.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives beyond siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that returns ISO-8601 UTC start times and covers next two weeks, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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 front-load purpose and follow with return format and sibling reference. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, temporal scope, and output format. Minor omission: could mention number of slots or scheduling frequency.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but confirms the tool takes no input.

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 lists available 30-minute demo time slots over the next two weeks, specifying verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling book_demo_slot by noting that tool is used for confirmation.

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 explicitly mentions when to use this tool and directs to book_demo_slot for confirmation, but does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention other siblings like request_demo.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the team will reach out within 1 business day, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits. Since annotations cover basic safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, both essential. The first states the action and the second gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 explains the tool's purpose and usage context, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, it lacks parameter details and explicit differentiation from sibling tools. Given no output schema, the description could have been more complete.

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 has 5 parameters with only 20% description coverage. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the purpose. Required fields (name, email, company) are not explained, and only 'message' has a schema description. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('submits an open demo request') and distinguishes it from picking a specific time, which is the purpose of sibling tool book_demo_slot. It also mentions that the team will reach out in 1 business day, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when the user does not want to choose a slot'), implying the alternative is booking a specific slot. However, it does not name the sibling tool book_demo_slot explicitly, which would have earned a 5.

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