aisha

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that cancellation is 'una acción definitiva' (a definitive action), requires confirmation with the person, has an instant effect on the time slot, and requires folio and name to match. This is valuable context, though it does not mention error cases or permissions.

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 succinct and well-structured: it opens with the action and effect, then lists requirements, and ends with a warning and follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema 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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, required credentials, irreversibility, and a related workflow. It does not elaborate on error handling, but that is likely covered by the output schema. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides only parameter names without descriptions, leaving 0% coverage. The description adds that the name must be the one used when making the reservation and that both folio and name must match, giving some meaning. However, it does not explain the format of folio or how to obtain it, so ambiguity remains.

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 function with the verb 'Cancela' (cancels) and a specific resource: 'una reserva existente en Aisha y libera la hora al instante.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crear_reserva (create) and consultar_reserva (query).

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 says when to use this tool (to cancel an existing reservation) and provides an alternative workflow for changing times: 'primero cancela con esta herramienta y luego crea la nueva con crear_reserva.' This names the sibling tool and gives clear sequencing.

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 only states that it consults free schedules, but does not clarify what 'horarios libres' means (e.g., list of slots), whether the operation is strictly read-only, or how it handles no-availability scenarios. The verb 'Consulta' is suggestive but not explicit.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes the essential date format, making it easy to parse.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values are structured. However, the description leaves gaps around parameter values (especially 'negocio') and lacks usage guidance. It is minimally viable but could be more complete without much effort.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'un negocio' and 'una fecha', and provides the date format (AAAA-MM-DD), but does not explain what 'negocio' accepts (ID, name, etc.) or any constraints. The parameter semantics are minimally addressed but insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 function: checking a business's free time slots on a given date. The verb 'Consulta' is specific and the resource ('horarios libres de un negocio') is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like consultar_reserva (query reservations) and ver_servicios (list services).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies usage for checking availability, there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, such as suggesting consultar_reserva for existing reservations.

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 reveals the critical behavior that both folio and nombre_cliente must match, framed as protection against querying others' reservations. It does not describe error details or return format, but the security constraint is a significant behavioral trait.

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 main purpose, then prerequisites, then usage context. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or wasted 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?

For a simple query tool with only two parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and use cases. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable. It lacks details on failure scenarios, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 provides only parameter names and titles with zero descriptions. The description compensates by giving a concrete folio example ('FILOSALO-0003') and clarifying that nombre_cliente is the name under which the reservation was made, adding meaning beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose: to check the status of an existing reservation in Aisha. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('reserva existente'), and distinguishes it from siblings like cancelar_reserva or crear_reserva by focusing on status inquiry.

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 provides use cases: 'Úsala cuando la persona pregunte "¿sigue en pie mi cita?" o quiera confirmar fecha, hora o dirección.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which is a minor gap.

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 the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the primary side effect (creating a reservation) and details the return values (folio, address, map link, advance notice). It does not mention auth or error conditions, but for a creation tool it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 verb and object, and every clause adds useful information. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 covers purpose, required parameters with formats, and return values, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks details about error handling or edge cases, but given the output schema and sibling tool context, the description is complete enough for a creation operation.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter type: negocio can be id or name, fecha uses AAAA-MM-DD, hora has an example (17:00), and all five parameters are described. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare 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 uses the specific verb 'Crea' with the resource 'reserva en un negocio', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancelar_reserva or consultar_disponibilidad. It also enumerates the key inputs and outputs, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 states the required parameters and their formats, giving agents enough context to know what inputs are necessary. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, the sibling names and the action verb make the intended use obvious.

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 the full burden. The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the output fields (giro, ciudad, estado de verificación), adding useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data' or mention limitations, but the low complexity keeps this acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, scope, and output fields, with every word contributing meaning.

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, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It states what is listed and key output attributes. No missing critical information 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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter info because there are none; the schema is empty. The description's mention of output fields adds contextual value 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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) with a clear resource ('todos los negocios conectados a Aisha') and specifies included fields (giro, ciudad, estado de verificación). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on reservations and services, not business listing.

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 indicates the tool's scope ('todos los negocios conectados a Aisha') and the context is clear given sibling tool names (cancellations, reservations, services). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the full burden and discloses a key behavioral trait: it only registers the request, not publish the business, and mentions the verification step with a person. It does not cover side effects beyond that, but the critical limitation is clearly highlighted.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence defines purpose, second gives usage context, third lists data requirements, and fourth highlights the important caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, yet the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what data to collect, and the critical consequence (no publication until verification). An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. It is complete for its purpose.

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 0%, so the description compensates by listing all required data (nombre comercial, giro, ciudad, etc.) and provides example values for 'giro' (barbería, estética, salón, spa). It does not explicitly mention the optional 'notas' parameter, but covers most parameters with meaningful context.

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 registers a business request to appear in Aisha and be bookable, with a specific verb ('Registra la solicitud') and resource ('un negocio'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on reservations and browsing by targeting business owner sign-up.

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 says 'Úsala cuando el dueño de un negocio pida darse de alta' and specifies required data collection steps. It also clarifies an important exclusion: the tool does not publish the business, providing clear when-to-use and what-not-to-expect 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Muestra' (shows) but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or disclose any limitations (e.g., what happens if the business is not found). It also doesn't mention auth requirements or rate limits. The description states what data is shown, which adds some transparency, but it lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 main purpose and followed by the input note. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or redundancy.

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 one required parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what it does and how to invoke it. The output schema handles return value details, so the description's focus on purpose and input is complete. No critical context 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the 'negocio' parameter accepts an ID or part of the name, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also clarifies that the parameter identifies the business. However, it doesn't specify format or length, but given the simple single-parameter design, this is adequate.

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 function: 'Muestra los servicios, precios, horario, dirección y cómo llegar a un negocio' (shows services, prices, schedule, address, and how to get to a business). It specifies the resource (a business) and the exact data returned, distinguishing it from siblings like listar_negocios which lists businesses rather than showing details.

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 clear context: use this when you need detailed service information for a specific business. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous. The input instruction 'Acepta el id o parte del nombre' gives practical usage guidance.

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