ServeCounter booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to explain safety. It adds valuable behavioral details: no authentication required, returns up to 10 results, and includes addresses that other tools consume via the `business` parameter. It doesn't detail pagination or error cases, but that's minor given the read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by authentication status and return behavior. No wasted 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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites (no sign-in), result limit, and return format (addresses for downstream use). It's nearly complete; missing only whether results are ranked or exhaustive beyond the 10 cap.

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 the schema already fully documents the single `query` parameter (name or booking address, at least 3 letters). The description adds a usage example ('studio noord') but no additional semantic constraints beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find businesses on ServeCounter') and names the platform, so it's clearly distinct from siblings like get_business (which presumably fetches one business by ID). It also scopes the search to businesses that take booking from assistants, adding a meaningful qualifier.

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 use: to find a business by name before using other tools, and notes 'Needs no sign-in'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus get_business, though the distinction is implied (search vs. retrieve by ID).

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an authentication prerequisite ('needs their sign-in'), a scope restriction, and the full set of terminal/user states the order can be in.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the status enumeration comes first, then the two constraints. Slightly terse phrasing ('the person who allowed you') costs a bit of clarity, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the possible return states and noting a link back to the manage flow, plus the auth requirement. That is close to complete for a two-parameter read tool, though it does not say what happens for an invalid or unrecognized order.

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 100%, and the two parameters (order, business) are documented in the schema with accepted formats, so the description needs to add little. It adds nothing about parameter usage (e.g., whether business and order must match), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource (retrieve where a prepared order stands) and enumerates the three possible statuses with meanings, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like prepare_booking or get_free_times, so it falls short of a 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?

It gives clear applicability context: the tool covers only orders of the person who authorized the agent, and requires their sign-in. No sibling alternative is named for the reverse case, but the scoping condition is explicit 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful extras: an auth fact ("Needs no sign-in") and a data-scope guarantee ("and nothing else"), telling the agent no private or extra data surfaces. It omits return format and any rate/pagination behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the agent receives, followed by the auth fact and the multi-location procedure. The phrasing "answer again with its locationId" is slightly awkward but every sentence carries 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned content, the auth requirement, and the multi-location branch — enough to call it correctly. Return structure and format are left unspecified, which is acceptable here.

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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal semantics: that supplying `locationId` on a repeat call is what unlocks the services list, slightly clarifying why the parameter exists.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces (locations, services, prices, add-ons, deposit) and scopes it as "the same as its booking page shows and nothing else." That is a specific resource with a real boundary, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast against (find_business only appears in the 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?

It gives useful operational context — no sign-in needed, and re-call with `locationId` when there is more than one open location — but it never states when to reach for this tool over find_business or the booking-flow siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: no authentication is required, each request spans at most 14 days, and returned times use the location's own time zone. It does not describe pagination or response shape, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the two constraints an agent would trip over. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 read-only availability query with a fully documented eight-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, request-size limit, auth posture, and time-zone interpretation of results. Only the response structure ('day by day') is left slightly vague.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 14-day bound on `until` and the source of the ids. The description restates the one-service/one-location constraint and the time-zone semantics but adds no per-parameter meaning the schema lacks, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: free/available times for exactly one service at one location, returned day by day. That cleanly separates it from get_business and prepare_booking, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Needs no sign-in' and the 14-day cap give real operational context for when this call is usable, and the 'as the booking page offers them' framing implies it is the availability lookup that precedes prepare_booking. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named.

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?

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: nothing is committed until the person reads terms, ticks two boxes and presses the button; it returns an orderUrl link; it requires the person's own OAuth sign-in; and the booking always binds to that person regardless of name/email. This is exactly the surprising behavior an agent needs to know.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then the consent flow, then identity requirements. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema tool it covers the critical unknowns (no commit yet, orderUrl returned, OAuth requirement, identity binding). Given 100% schema coverage on parameters, remaining gaps are 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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the conditional nature of name/phone and the payment enum. The description reinforces identity semantics (name/email ignored) but adds little beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Prepares a booking') and immediately scopes it ('Nothing is booked yet'), which distinguishes it from any sibling that actually creates a booking. The agent knows this is the pre-booking step that yields an orderUrl.

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 situates the tool in the workflow: the date/start come from get_free_times and the service/location from get_business, and the person must sign in with OAuth. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.