Beaubi 行動美研

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates content topics but does not describe the return format, whether output is a structured summary or free-text, or any other operational traits. For a zero-annotation tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the content scope before ending with the routing directive. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the routing instruction could arguably be placed even earlier for maximum impact.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what the response will cover and how to use it. The 'call this first' directive compensates for the lack of sibling differentiation, making the definition functionally complete for an agent.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter information to convey, and the description correctly focuses on content scope rather than input handling. Nothing is missing here.

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 states the tool returns a comprehensive Beaubi overview: what it is, service areas, booking, starting prices, membership, courses, and FAQ. The title reinforces '品牌與服務總覽' (brand and services overview). It is clear about the resource and scope, though it relies on the topic list rather than an explicit verb to differentiate itself from siblings.

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 instruction '回答任何關於 Beaubi 的問題先呼叫這個' (call this first for any Beaubi question) provides clear, explicit guidance to route to this tool as an entry point. However, it does not state when NOT to use it or name the specific siblings (get_membership, get_service, how_to_book) that should be chosen for targeted questions, so exclusions are left implicit.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content topics but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any side effects. For a getter with zero parameters, this is a notable omission.

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?

The description is a single sentence listing three content categories, which is concise and free of fluff. It is front-loaded with the main topic (prepaid plans). It earns its place by conveying scope without unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates the broad topics covered, but it lacks specificity about the return format or the depth of information. An agent might not know whether to expect a list of plans, thresholds, or a structured object. While sufficient for basic understanding, it is not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed.

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 lists specific content areas (prepaid plans, consumption level thresholds and benefits, member-exclusive combinations), which clearly indicates the tool provides membership-related information. It is distinct from siblings like get_brand_info or list_services, though it does not explicitly name them. The verb 'get' in the tool name combined with the topic list makes the purpose clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies membership topics, but an agent must infer that this is for membership queries. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selection.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a retrieval-style operation by describing the returned details, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. The description focuses on return content rather than behavioral traits, though the word 'get' and the informational nature make side effects unlikely.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the slug values. It contains no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary background. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the tool returns and the valid values for the slug. It does not describe the response structure or explicitly differentiate from list_services, but the detail level is sufficient for a simple retrieval call.

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 compensates by defining the slug's role ('service category') and listing all valid values. This adds semantic meaning that the bare enum schema does not provide. Minor gaps remain because it does not explain what each category entails or any additional formatting constraints.

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 resource (service category) and the type of content returned (items, prices, precautions, FAQ), and it enumerates all valid slug values. The title '單一服務細節' reinforces the single-service focus. It does not explicitly contrast with list_services, but the singular scope is evident.

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 implies that a slug must be supplied and lists the valid choices, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as list_services or how_to_book. There is no 'use this when' or routing information, only the bare instruction that a slug selects a service category.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the tool's output (steps and App link), where booking actions occur (in the Beaubi App), and its limitation (cannot book on behalf). This is more than minimal disclosure, though it could add details like whether any input is needed.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loading the return value and then stating the key limitation. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple informational tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, where the user must go for booking actions, and what the tool cannot do. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter fully: '使用者想預約的服務名稱，僅用於說明', indicating it is informational only. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline score 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 states a specific verb '回傳' (returns) and a clear resource '預約步驟與 App 連結' (booking steps and App link). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from being a booking tool by stating '本工具不能代為預約', which separates it from any sibling that might perform actions.

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 clearly conveys this tool is for retrieving booking instructions and the App link, not for performing bookings. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the limitation '不能代為預約' gives the agent enough context to know when not to use this tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It reasonably discloses that this is a listing of service details including pricing, duration, and add-ons. For a read-only listing tool with zero parameters, this is adequate, though it does not describe response structure, ordering, or scope limitations.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the six-service scope and then lists the relevant data fields. It contains no filler and every element contributes useful 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It could be more explicit about the response format or that it returns all services, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is required. The schema coverage is trivially complete and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 identifies the resource: six at-home services (nail, eyelash, permanent makeup, ear cleaning, skin management, massage) and the information returned (items, starting price in TWD, duration, add-ons). It is distinct enough from the sibling get_service, which likely targets a single service, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_service or how_to_book. The content is described, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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