Get a link for a business owner to sign up and list their business on BookingMaven. Returns a URL with optional pre-filled details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Business owner email | ||
| category | No | Type of business | |
| business_name | No | Name of the business |
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.
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.
