booboooking Appointment Booking

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: payment is in cash at appointment, no online payment, and the response includes id, pin, and optionally cash_due. It also mentions validation requirements for phone number.

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 paragraph but each sentence serves a purpose, covering payment, profile usage, phone format, and output expectations. It is structured logically, though slightly lengthy; it could be broken into bullet points for easier parsing.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter usage, output fields (id, pin, cash_due), and validation rules. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that customer_name and customer_email should come from the sign-in profile, and that customer_phone must be in E.164 format. It also clarifies the time parameter should be from check_availability results.

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 action 'Book an appointment on booboooking.com' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancellation and availability checks by specifying the tool's purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on using the signed-in user's profile for name and email, and asking for phone separately. It also instructs to convert phone numbers to E.164 format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for other actions.

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?

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses the key prerequisite (both ID and pin needed) and a critical constraint (do not invent pin). It lacks details on side effects or response format, but for a simple cancellation operation, it provides sufficient transparency beyond a minimal definition.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose. The second sentence is somewhat long but packs necessary context. No unnecessary words; all content earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the action, prerequisites, and a key behavioral rule (asking for pin). It doesn't describe the result or error states, but for a cancel operation with no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context: explaining that both reservation_id and pin come from the original booking call and serve as proof of ownership. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and their origin, going beyond the schema's technical description.

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 'Cancel a reservation on booboooking.com', specifying the verb (cancel) and resource (reservation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like booboooking_book or booboooking_check_availability by focusing solely on cancellation.

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 states that reservation_id and pin are required, both from the original booking call, and that the pin is proof of ownership. It instructs the agent to ask the user for the pin if not in conversation state, and never to invent or guess it. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('available dates with slots — each slot has a "time" field and a "display" field') and the relationship to booking, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, detailing the return format, and providing usage guidance, with no 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return format, but could improve by addressing authentication needs or error scenarios, though this is mitigated by the clear schema.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how provider and service_id relate or clarifying date formats, meeting 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Check available time slots') and resources ('provider and service on booboooking.com'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning it should be used 'before booking' with booboooking_book.

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 for when to use this tool ('Use this before booking') and implies an alternative (booboooking_book), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the other sibling tool (booboooking_list_services).

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. It mentions forward search, sorted results, and defaults (count, from_date, search_days). However, it does not disclose behavior when no slots are found (empty vs error), or any other side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides a usage hint. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main idea and parameter defaults. It lacks detail on return format, error states, and edge cases, but is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds marginal value. It reiterates the default for count but does not elaborate on formats or constraints beyond the schema. 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 action (search forward for next available appointments), the resource (provider and service on booboooking.com), and the output (up to `count` openings sorted chronologically). This distinguishes it from siblings like booboooking_check_availability which likely requires a specific date.

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 'Useful when you need "the next available appointment" without a specific date in mind,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling names imply the distinction.

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?

Discloses authentication requirement via PIN and conditional payment state in return. With no annotations provided, the description adequately covers behavioral traits, though could mention safety/idempotency.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, description mentions return includes full booking details and payment state. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool, though could note error conditions or rate limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond clarifying PIN origin and format of reservation_id, meeting 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'booking by its reservation ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like booboooking_book (create) and booboooking_cancel (delete).

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 requires the PIN from the original booking response, guiding the agent on prerequisite conditions for use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but context is 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the read-only nature (listing) and return format, but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds useful context about the workflow role but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 zero waste. First sentence states purpose and return format, second sentence provides crucial workflow guidance. Every word serves a clear purpose and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context about purpose, usage sequence, and return data. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, it's largely adequate.

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 fully documents the single 'provider' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the specific action ('List available services'), target resource ('for a provider on booboooking.com'), and scope ('Returns service names, IDs, duration, and price'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on service listing rather than booking or availability checking.

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 states when to use this tool ('Call this first to find the service ID needed for availability and booking') and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools (booboooking_book, booboooking_check_availability) by establishing it as a prerequisite step in the workflow.

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