check_availabilityWhether a pick-up date/time is bookable under standard operating rules (not a live calendar). Standard hours 06:00-21:00 AEST; outside that is an after-hours request; same-day should phone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| time | Yes | HH:MM 24h |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds value by explaining the tool is rule-based rather than a live calendar, and by specifying the AEST hours and after-hours handling. This goes beyond the minimal safety profile.
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 with no filler. The first defines purpose and scope, the second gives operational rules. Well-structured 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 simple read-only tool with two clearly documented parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, edge cases (after-hours, same-day), and the non-live nature. No output schema is needed given the 'whether' wording.
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 parameter formats completely (YYYY-MM-DD, HH:MM 24h). The description adds that the date/time refers to pick-up and implies AEST timezone via the standard hours statement, providing marginal extra meaning.
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 whether a pick-up date/time is bookable under standard operating rules. It distinguishes itself as a rule-based check ('not a live calendar') and is clearly separate from siblings like get_quote and request_booking.
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 gives useful operating context: standard hours, after-hours classification, and same-day phone advice. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the phrase 'same-day should phone' provides guidance on when not to rely solely on this tool.
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: availability checks, pricing quotes, service information, and booking requests. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_availability, get_quote, get_service_info, request_booking). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a booking-focused server, covering the essential pre-booking and booking request steps without redundancy.
The core lifecycle of checking, quoting, and requesting a booking is covered. Missing cancel/status tools are a minor gap since the server emphasizes booking requests rather than full booking management.