check_availabilityPrüft für ein Datum, welche Slots (vormittag, nachmittag, ganztags) in welchen Räumen noch frei sind, inklusive Standardpreisen in CHF. Ohne roomIds werden alle aktiven Räume geprüft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Datum im Format YYYY-MM-DD | |
| roomIds | No | Optional: nur diese Raum-IDs prüfen (IDs aus list_rooms) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the tool checks availability and includes prices, and describes the default behavior. Lacks details on error handling or response format, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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, no fluff, well-structured with the action and important defaults front-loaded.
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 the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It mentions slots, prices, and default room filtering. Could be improved by hinting at the return structure, but not necessary for basic use.
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 each parameter described. The description adds value by explaining default behavior (all active rooms when roomIds omitted) and that prices are included, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
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 checks room availability for a given date, including slot types (morning, afternoon, full day) and standard prices. It distinguishes from siblings like create_booking (booking) and list_rooms (listing rooms).
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 explains when to use the tool (to check availability for a date) and notes the default behavior when roomIds are omitted. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use scenarios or compare to siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking availability, listing rooms, listing services, quoting, creating binding bookings, and requesting non-binding bookings. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_availability, list_rooms), making them predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a room booking system—enough to cover key operations without being excessive.
Covers all major booking creation steps (list, check, quote, book), but lacks tools for updating or canceling existing bookings, which is a minor gap.