marketplace

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-read-only. Description adds context of safe retry and references to prerequisite tools, aligning with and reinforcing annotations. No contradictions.

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. First sentence states purpose, second provides critical guidance. Efficient and 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?

For a booking tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, description covers prerequisite tools and idempotency. Could mention return value but not required. Fairly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what's in schema descriptions (e.g., service_id from get_business). Adequate but not enhancing.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Reserve' and resource 'appointment slot at a service business'. Distinguishes from siblings like cancel_appointment and reschedule_appointment.

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 mentions providing an idempotency key for safe retry and directs the agent to get_service_id from get_business and start_time/end_time from get_availability. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to alternatives, but purpose is clear.

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 include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'Safe to retry (idempotent)' and 'No account needed', 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?

Three concise sentences front-load purpose, then requirements, then additional info. No unnecessary 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?

With 2 params, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description provides enough context for a simple cancellation tool. Could mention constraints like cancellation window.

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%, but the description clarifies where to obtain the parameters ('from book_appointment'), adding meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'a booking you made', which is distinct from sibling tools like book_appointment and reschedule_appointment.

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 requires booking_id and lookup_token from book_appointment, and notes 'No account needed'. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like reschedule_appointment.

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 full burden. It discloses the full flow: generating a link, customer sets password, account activation, linking past bookings. No destructive actions mentioned, but sufficient for understanding.

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, front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should specify the return value. It says 'Get a signup link' but does not describe the format or structure of the response. Also, the tool name 'create_account' slightly misleads as it only generates the link, not creates the account. Adequate but with gaps.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'pre-filled', 'same email used for booking') but does not significantly add beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool generates a BookingMaven signup link pre-filled with customer details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'link_account' or 'start_business_signup' by specifying the action and resource.

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 usage for creating a signup link but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or potential side effects. It only describes the return value, lacking transparency about idempotency or rate limits.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and provide actionable context for output usage. Every sentence serves a clear function without waste.

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 return format (ISO timestamps) and its integration with book_appointment, but does not address edge cases like no available slots, pagination, or timezone handling (though timezone is a parameter). Given no output schema, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds a usage note about output integration with book_appointment, but this does not enhance parameter semantics 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'open appointment slots' for a business on a specific date. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and its role in the booking workflow, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like book_appointment or cancel_appointment.

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 usage before booking an appointment by stating 'Use these start_time/end_time values when calling book_appointment.' However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidelines, exclusions, or alternatives.

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?

Description confirms read-only behavior (via annotations), specifies token requirements, and notes that no account is needed. It does not elaborate on error states but annotations already convey safety (readOnlyHint=true) and variability (openWorldHint=true).

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 accomplish the purpose: first states the action, second lists requirements. No redundant words, and critical information is 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?

For a simple lookup tool with full schema coverage and informative annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description covers all necessary behavioral context. No output schema is needed for this use case.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds that the values come from book_appointment, which is helpful context but not essential beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Look up'), the resource ('current status/time of a booking'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_my_bookings or book_appointment by emphasizing a single booking retrieval using tokens.

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 lists required inputs (booking_id, lookup_token) and context ('no account needed'). It implies usage after book_appointment but does not directly state when not to use it, though the required tokens naturally limit misuse.

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. It clearly describes a read operation ('Get full details') and specifies the output, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, free of side effects, or discuss any authorization requirements. The verb 'get' implies safety, but further context like no destructive actions is missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a relevant usage hint. Every sentence adds value; no redundant 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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key outputs (services, staff, hours) and hints at the booking context. It does not detail every possible return field, but it is sufficient for understanding the tool's role among siblings. The lack of output schema is somewhat offset by the descriptive output list.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: both parameters have descriptions explaining they are business slugs from search_businesses. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 retrieves full business details including services (with IDs/prices), staff, and hours. The verb 'Get' and resource 'business' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like search_businesses and get_availability by listing the output contents.

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 provides implicit guidance by stating the need to get service_id and optionally staff_id before calling book_appointment, indicating the tool's role in the booking workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other sibling tools like get_booking or get_availability.

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?

Discloses OAuth requirement and verified email need, adding context beyond annotations which indicate idempotentHint=true but no contradictions.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying purpose and prerequisites.

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?

Adequately covers purpose and requirements; slight gap on post-link effects, but overall complete for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema.

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, so baseline 4. Description provides sufficient context for a parameterless tool.

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 links guest bookings to the signed-in account, using specific verbs and distinguishing from siblings like 'create_account' which creates new accounts.

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 states when to use (to manage guest bookings) and prerequisites (OAuth, verified email), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or reference sibling alternatives.

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 include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns both upcoming and past bookings, and mentions auth requirements, providing value 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-loading the purpose and prerequisites. No redundant 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?

Despite no output schema, description states return values (upcoming and past bookings). Auth requirement and zero parameters make this complete for a simple list 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional parameter meaning 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 clearly states 'List all appointments booked with your email address', specifying verb (list) and resource (appointments). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_booking or cancel_appointment.

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 mentions OAuth authentication requirement and verified email, which is crucial context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling tool names provide enough differentiation.

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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds that the new slot is checked for conflicts, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not explain what happens to the original booking (e.g., cancellation), but the conflict check is a useful disclosure 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?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential details. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers input origins, conflict checking, and authentication requirements. It does not explain return values or error cases, but given the tool's low complexity, the information provided is fairly 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 coverage is 100%, so all 4 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining the provenance of each parameter (e.g., 'lookup_token from book_appointment', 'new_start_time from get_availability'), which helps the agent understand how to obtain valid values.

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 starts with 'Move a booking you made to a new time', which clearly states the verb (move) and resource (booking). This purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like book_appointment (create) and cancel_appointment (delete).

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 lists required parameters and their sources (booking_id and lookup_token from book_appointment, new times from get_availability). It states conflict checking and that no account is needed, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., when the booking belongs to someone else or when changing the business/service). Still, the guidance is clear for the intended use case.

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?

While no annotations are provided, the description implies a read-only operation (search). It could be more explicit about nondestructive behavior, but the nature of a search makes it sufficiently transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides guidance on related tools.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and directs users to other tools for more details.

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 100% (all parameters are described in schema). The description adds little beyond the schema, such as giving an example for the location field. 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search for service businesses by location') and what it returns (booking URLs, ratings, descriptions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_business and get_availability.

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 vs. alternatives: 'Use get_business to see services and get_availability to check open slots.' This provides clear guidance.

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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (URL) and optional pre-fill, but does not mention potential side effects (appears read-only), authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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: first states the core purpose (get a link for business owner signup), second adds return behavior (URL with optional pre-fill). No fluff, front-loaded 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type (URL). All 3 parameters are documented in schema. The tool is simple and the description covers the essential behavioral context, though it misses constraints like link expiration or whether the link is one-time 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'optional pre-filled details' which hints at parameter usage, but does not provide meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already describes for email, category, and business_name.

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 signup link for business owners, specifying the resource (business signup link on BookingMaven) and adding detail about optional pre-filled information. The tool name aligns, and none of the siblings duplicate this functionality, though create_account could be related but is not ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_account for general user signup). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit 'when' or 'when-not' advice.

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