booboooking Appointment Booking

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-open-world traits. The description goes far beyond that by disclosing cash-only payment, validation failure on malformed phone numbers, response fields id/pin needing to be remembered paired for cancellation, and optional cash_due instructions. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation 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?

The description is dense but efficient, with the core purpose front-loaded and every subsequent sentence carrying critical instructions. There is no filler or repetition of schema details that adds no 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?

With no output schema, the description still covers return handling (id, pin, cash_due), data sourcing, validation requirements, and payment expectations. Combined with full parameter documentation in the schema and sibling context for cancellation and availability checks, the agent has everything needed to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new parameter semantics: customer_name and customer_email should come from the host app's profile rather than user input, customer_phone must be requested separately and converted to E.164, and response id/pin/cash_due relate to the data the agent must manage. This elevates it above baseline.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Book an appointment on booboooking.com', and clarifies free OR paid services. It is unambiguous against sibling tools like cancel, check_availability, and list_services, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 concrete operational guidance: use the signed-in user's profile for name/email, always ask for phone separately, convert local numbers to E.164, and what to do with the response. It does not explicitly name when to choose this tool versus a sibling, but the booking context is clear and the guidance is substantial.

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?

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that both reservation_id and pin are required as proof of booking ownership, that cancellation is impossible without the pin, and that the pin must never be invented or guessed. This substantially clarifies the safety-critical behavior for an agent.

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 core action, followed immediately by the critical prerequisite and a clear 'must ask' instruction. No filler or redundant material.

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 destructive action with three required parameters and no return-value obligations, the description covers the action, all invocation prerequisites, and the fallback behavior when the pin is missing. The parameter details in the schema fill any remaining gaps.

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 already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds the relationship between reservation_id/pin and the original booboooking_book call, plus the hard constraint that the pin must come from conversation state, not be fabricated. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter text.

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 the exact operation ('Cancel a reservation on booboooking.com') and clearly differentiates from siblings such as booboooking_book and booboooking_get_booking. It also specifies the ownership proof requirement tied to the original booking call.

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 an explicit trigger ('If the user asks to cancel...') and a concrete procedure for the missing-pin case. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but sibling operations are sufficiently distinct that no exclusion is necessary.

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 signal read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the slot structure: the 'time' field for booking and the 'display' field for user presentation, plus the lifecycle instruction to check before booking. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with a clear lead action, precise return-value semantics, and a direct usage directive. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 the annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters, the description completes the picture by explaining the shape and usage of the return value. A agent has everything it needs to decide when to call and how to interpret the result.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description does not add parameter-specific insights beyond what the schema provides; it mainly explains the return fields. 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 clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'available time slots' for a provider and service, and ties the output to the booking step ('use this for booboooking_book'). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like booboooking_book or booboooking_find_next_available.

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 'Use this before booking,' which gives clear placement in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as booboooking_find_next_available, so it stops short of full exclusion 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it searches forward chronologically, returns up to `count` openings, and sorts results by time. No contradiction with annotations 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?

Three sentences, all purposeful: first states the core action, second describes output behavior, third gives the use case. No filler, no repetition of schema information, and the most important info is 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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description captures the core semantics, result ordering, and primary use case. The only small gap is not explicitly naming the alternative for date-specific availability checks, but that is sufficiently implied.

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 every parameter is already documented with meaning and defaults. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond mentioning `count`; the schema carries the burden, so the baseline score of 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?

States a specific action ('search forward for the next available appointment slots'), the target resource (a provider and service on booboooking.com), and the key differentiating use case ('without a specific date in mind'). This clearly distinguishes it from date-specific sibling tools like check_availability.

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 the tool is useful when the agent needs the next available appointment without a specific date, giving clear selection context. It doesn't name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to choose this over a date-specific lookup.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the PIN ownership requirement and the conditional payment-state return 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and then adds the most important usage detail and return-value nuance.

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 lookup with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential call context, ownership proof, and return highlights. It could mention error handling for an invalid PIN or missing reservation, but that is a minor gap given the focused scope.

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%, with each parameter already explained, including the reservation ID format and PIN provenance. The description adds no new per-parameter semantics, only reinforcing that the PIN proves ownership, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a booking by its reservation ID.' It clearly distinguishes this retrieval operation from sibling tools like booboooking_book, booboooking_cancel, and the availability-check tools.

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 the key usage constraint: the PIN from the original booking response is required to prove ownership. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the retrieval intent and required credentials make the usage context clear.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by revealing the exact output content (service names, IDs, duration, price) and the tool's role as the entry point for the workflow, which is especially useful since no output schema is present.

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 sentence states purpose and returns; the second provides indispensable sequencing guidance. Every word earns its place, and the content is 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 single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the input domain, states the return contents, and explains the tool's role in the broader operation. An agent has all it needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single 'provider' parameter already well-documented via examples. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but it reinforces that the provider is the input required to scope the service list. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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-resource pair ('List available services for a provider') and explicitly states the returned data ('service names, IDs, duration, and price'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning as the prerequisite for availability and booking tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first to find the service ID needed for availability and booking.' This clearly instructs an agent to invoke this tool before its booking and availability siblings, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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