Get a BookingMaven signup link pre-filled with the customer's details. The customer visits the link to set their password and activate their account, which links their past bookings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Customer full name | |
| Yes | Customer email (use the same email used for booking) | ||
| phone | No | Customer phone number (optional) |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: booking, cancellation, availability, business details, account management, etc. Even similar tools like get_booking and list_my_bookings have clear differences in parameters and scope.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., book_appointment, get_availability, search_businesses). No mixed styles or irregular verbs.
11 tools is well-scoped for a booking marketplace, covering customer operations, account linking, and business signup without unnecessary duplication.
The tool surface covers the core customer journey (search, view, book, cancel, reschedule) and account management. Minor gaps like business-side booking management are likely out of scope.
