aisha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses owner-only scope and that this is the inverse of cerrar_horas, but does not explain side effects on bookings/availability, whether reopening is reversible, or permission requirements beyond 'DUEÑO'.

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?

Front-loaded with audience and purpose in the first sentence, then only the essential inverse relationship and trigger examples. No filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with five inputs, four required, and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: it never clarifies the required parameters or their formats, which is a major gap for correct invocation.

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% and the description gives no meaning for any of the five parameters. An agent learns nothing about negocio, clave, fecha, desde, or hasta beyond their bare names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reopening hours that had been closed, restricted to the owner. It also explicitly names cerrar_horas as its opposite, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: for the owner, with concrete user utterances like 'ya puedo el jueves' and 'ábreme la tarde otra vez'. It also points to cerrar_horas as the inverse operation, though it does not spell out explicit when-not conditions.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a side effect beyond structured data: the entry lands in the agenda that AI assistants read, so omitting it risks double-booking. It says nothing about permissions ('clave' is required), duplicate/conflict handling, or what happens on failure.

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?

Front-loads the audience and action, then the rationale, then the parameter contrast — a sensible order. Slight padding in 'Esta es la importante', but overall the prose is tight and every sentence adds 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?

A mutation tool with 8 parameters, 6 required, no annotations and zero schema coverage needs heavy description support. The description explains the 'why' well but leaves most parameters, auth expectations and failure behaviour unexplained; the existing output schema only excuses the absence of return-value 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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and barely does. It only clarifies the optionality of 'contacto_cliente' (and recommends supplying it) while 'negocio', 'clave', 'persona', 'fecha', 'hora', 'servicio' and 'nombre_cliente' remain entirely undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('meter en Aisha una cita') plus the intended actor ('Para el DUEÑO'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('A diferencia de crear_reserva'). The routing boundary is however drawn only at the parameter level (optional contact) rather than at the whole use case, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition — bookings arriving by phone, WhatsApp, or walk-in must be entered here — and a strong rationale (otherwise AI assistants see an incomplete agenda and may sell an already-taken slot). It names crear_reserva as the counterpart but does not state the inverse condition that selects crear_reserva.

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 does well: it discloses that cancellation is irreversible, that ambiguity results in NO cancellation plus a returned list, and that the client is not notified automatically. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or the success response, though an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the owner scope and the two lookup modes, then layers the safety caveat and the reminder. Every sentence carries information, though the closing reminder sits slightly apart from the operational core.

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 5-param destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical risks: irreversibility, no-guessing on ambiguity, and the notification gap. Output schema exists so return values need not be described. The unexplained required params 'clave' and 'negocio' are the remaining gap.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the two lookup paths (folio vs. nombre_cliente + fecha), which clarifies three params, but the required 'clave' and 'negocio' parameters are never mentioned or disambiguated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with explicit ownership scoping: 'cancelar una cita de su propio negocio'. This cleanly separates it from the sibling 'cancelar_reserva', which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives explicit activation context ('Para el DUEÑO') and two concrete invocation modes (por folio, o por nombre del cliente y fecha). It also states what happens when the request is ambiguous, which is exactly the decision guidance an agent needs.

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?

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, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key side-effect boundary: it does not touch existing appointments and instead asks the owner to decide on cancellation. It still doesn't state permission/auth requirements beyond 'DUEÑO', nor whether re-closing an already-closed hour is idempotent.

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?

Front-loads the owner scope, then usage examples, then edge-case behavior in three tight paragraphs. Slightly verbose, but every sentence adds operational 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the side-effect on existing bookings is covered. The remaining gap is that three of five parameters lack any semantic explanation.

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 explains 'desde'/'hasta' format and that omitting 'hasta' closes a single hour, but leaves 'negocio', 'clave', and 'fecha' (including date format) entirely undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('cerrar horas') scoped to the business owner, and the phrase 'para que nadie se las pueda agendar' explains the effect. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling abrir_horas.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('tápame mañana de 2 a 4', 'no voy a estar el jueves'), the format for 'desde'/'hasta' (24h), and the rule for the full-day case (use business open/close hours). Nothing about when to invoke is left to inference.

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 does disclose conditional behavior: with persona it returns only that person's hours, without it returns hours when someone is free. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error cases, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'consulta' and 'devuelve'.

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 the core purpose and date format, then add only the conditional behavior needed to use the persona parameter correctly. No filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter availability query with an output schema, the description covers all essential call semantics: required business/date, optional person, date format, and expected output behavior. It lacks only explicit handling of invalid businesses or dates and any reference to sibling lookups like listar_negocios, but these are not critical.

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 are absent, but the description compensates well: it specifies the date format (AAAA-MM-DD), explains the optional persona parameter with a concrete scenario and fallback behavior, and makes negocio's role clear. This goes well 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 names a specific action ('Consulta los horarios libres'), a resource (negocio), and a date, plus an optional filter by person. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling reservation-management tools like consultar_reserva and crear_reserva.

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 gives clear context for when to call the tool (when free slots are needed) and detailed conditional guidance for the persona parameter. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns not to invent contact data, explains why the business needs it, and instructs the agent to offer a telephone fallback if the user declines. It also covers optional persona behavior and describes the return payload (folio, assigned person, address, map link, arrival lead time). While it does not discuss failure modes or side effects beyond creation, the provided behavioral guidance is substantial and valuable.

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 longer than average but well structured with a clear summary, a required-fields list, and separately labeled notes for contacto_cliente and persona. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary behavioral nuance. Some repetition occurs around the contact requirement, but each section serves a distinct purpose and the length is justified by the need to prevent data fabrication and misrouting.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is highly complete. It covers required and optional inputs, format expectations, sensitive data-handling rules, and return values. The output schema may exist, but the description still usefully summarizes what the tool returns. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly in a booking conversation.

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, and it does thoroughly. It clarifies negocio as id or name, gives format for fecha (AAAA-MM-DD), provides an example for hora, explains contacto_cliente as the attendee's phone or WhatsApp, and explains the optional persona parameter in detail. All seven parameters receive meaningful semantic guidance beyond their bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Crea una reserva en un negocio.' It also names the object being created, lists required inputs, and distinguishes itself naturally from sibling tools like cancelar_reserva and consultar_reserva by focusing on the creation action. An agent can immediately identify this as the booking-creation tool.

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 explains when to call the tool by specifying required fields and even guides behavior around obtaining contacto_cliente and handling the optional persona field. It references ver_servicios for staff names, giving useful cross-tool context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use the tool, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the authentication requirement (panel key from the agenda link), the default behavior when no date is given ('Sin fecha, muestra hoy'), and what is returned (appointments with attendee, service, time, plus free slots). It stops short of stating permissions scope or whether the read is scoped strictly to one business, but this is solid disclosure for a read tool.

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 short sentences, well front-loaded: audience, auth requirement, then return/default behavior. No filler, though it could be marginally tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere; the description nonetheless summarizes the returned content and covers auth and the date default. For a 3-param read tool the remaining gap (negocio format, exact scope) is minor.

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 explains 'clave' (the panel key from the agenda link) and 'fecha' (absent = today), adding genuine meaning beyond the bare schema, but the 'negocio' parameter is only implied by 'DUEÑO de un negocio' and its expected format is never clarified.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('ver cómo va su día' = view today's schedule) and names the audience ('Para el DUEÑO de un negocio'), which distinguishes it from owner-agnostic scheduling siblings. However the phrasing 'cómo va su día' is softer than a crisp 'list today's appointments', leaving slight ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

Gives real context for when to use it (business owner viewing their own day) and notes it requires the panel key, but never names an alternative among the many scheduling siblings (consultar_disponibilidad, ver_servicios) or states when NOT to use it.

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.