booboooking Appointment Booking

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that payment is always in cash, that success returns id and pin (to be remembered for cancellation), and optional cash_due details. It also warns that local-format phone numbers will cause validation failure, providing concrete behavioral expectations.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence contributes: purpose, payment policy, user data sourcing, phone formatting, and response handling. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant content.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: payment method, return values (id/pin/cash_due), and phone validation. However, it does not describe how to obtain provider/service_id/date/time inputs, which are documented in the schema but not in the description, and it omits error-handling behavior. Still, it is substantially complete for its 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 input schema already documents all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value by instructing agents to reuse profile data for customer_name/customer_email and to ask for customer_phone separately, and by reiterating the phone format conversion requirement. These go beyond the schema's property descriptions, particularly for the customer fields.

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 explicitly states 'Book an appointment on booboooking.com' with a clear verb and resource, and further distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it covers free and paid services. The sibling tools focus on cancellation, availability, and listing, making this uniquely the booking action.

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 use, including instructions to source customer_name/customer_email from the signed-in user profile and to always ask for customer_phone separately. It also stipulates the E.164 phone format and conversion prerequisite, and advises reminding the user about cash_due. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by explaining that both credentials are needed as proof of booking ownership, that cancellation is impossible without the pin, and that the agent must never fabricate it. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as irreversibility, refunds, or penalties, which would be useful for a cancellation 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 composed of three short, purposeful sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then explains prerequisites, and ends with a clear directive. Every sentence earns its place without excess verbiage or repetition of schema content.

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 low complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what parameters are required and why, and what to do if a required value is missing. However, it does not describe the expected return value or post-cancellation behavior, and the absence of an output schema means the agent gets no guidance on success/failure indicators. Still, the core operational knowledge is sufficiently addressed.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds further semantic meaning by linking the reservation_id and pin to the original booboooking_book call and emphasizing their role as 'proof of booking ownership'. It also reinforces the critical non-invention rule for the pin, providing value beyond the schema 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Cancel a reservation on booboooking.com') and identifies the specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on cancellation, which is a unique operation among booboooking_book, check_availability, find_next_available, get_booking, and 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 gives explicit usage guidance: requires both reservation_id and pin from the original booboooking_book call, and instructs the agent to ask the user for the pin if not already in conversation state. It also states a clear 'when-not' condition ('you cannot cancel without it') and prohibits inventing the pin, which effectively tells the agent not to proceed under those circumstances.

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 burden. It discloses the output structure (available dates with slots, each with time and display fields) and indicates this is a read-only pre-booking step. However, it doesn't mention any permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, and it doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't mutate state, though 'check' implies it. Overall, it provides moderate transparency.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence explains the return fields, and the third gives usage instruction. 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?

Given the tool has no output schema or annotations, the description explains the key output fields (time vs display) and the tool's role in the booking flow. It doesn't detail the structure of available dates beyond slots, but for a straightforward check tool this is adequate. Slightly incomplete without any notes on error handling or edge cases like no availability, but overall 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including defaults for days_ahead and start_date. The description adds minimal information about parameters beyond mentioning provider and service. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not elevated.

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 checks available time slots for a provider and service, with a specific verb 'check' and resource 'available time slots'. It explains output format and mentions it's for pre-booking, which distinguishes it from siblings like book and cancel. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from find_next_available, which might also 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this before booking,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also explains how to use the returned fields (time for book, display for user), guiding the agent on next steps. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like find_next_available, but the guidance is sufficient.

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 discloses that results are sorted chronologically and limited by count, and that the search moves forward from a date. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (no side effects) or explain error behaviors (e.g., what happens when no slots are found). This is adequate for a search tool but not comprehensive.

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 the action and resource. No wasted words. The second sentence provides a practical use case. Perfectly concise and well-structured for a tool description.

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 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core behavior (return next available slots, up to count, sorted) but omits details about the structure of each returned opening (e.g., start time, end time) and does not mention the optional parameters from_date and search_days, relying on the schema for those. For a simple search tool, this is fairly complete, but the lack of return value structure is a mild gap given no output 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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'provider' and 'service' but not the parameters by name, and it does not clarify the relationship between from_date and search_days beyond what the schema already states. The term 'count' is also already described in 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 clearly states the tool searches forward for the next available appointment slots for a provider and service on booboooking.com. The verb 'Search forward' is specific and the resource (appointment slots) is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like book, cancel, and 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Useful when you need "the next available appointment" without a specific date in mind.' This implies when to use this tool (no fixed date) and implicitly differentiates it from check_availability, which likely handles date-specific queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it doesn't fully earn 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that a PIN is needed for ownership proof and that the response includes full booking details plus payment state when applicable. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover error cases or side effects.

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 lead sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage and output context. Every clause 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with full schema parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (full details, payment state) and the required input context (PIN). It lacks potential error behavior, but that's not critical for this simple 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the PIN and reservation_id originate from the original booking call, but it adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No deduction or bonus warranted.

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 immediately states 'Retrieve a booking by its reservation ID' with a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like booboooking_book, booboooking_cancel, and booboooking_check_availability, which perform different actions.

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 a key precondition: 'Requires the PIN from the original booking response to prove ownership.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate (i.e., when PIN is available) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the return data (service names, IDs, duration, price) and the purpose, which is appropriate for a read-only listing tool. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., invalid provider) or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps in 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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, then return values, then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or filler. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description adequately explains what it does, what it returns, and why it should be called first. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by specifying return fields. It does not cover error handling, but for this level of complexity, the guidance is sufficient.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description and examples for the sole parameter 'provider'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List available services for a provider on booboooking.com.' It specifies the output ('service names, IDs, duration, and price'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like booking, cancellation, availability, and next-available lookup. The verb 'list' and resource 'services' make the function unmistakable.

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 usage context by stating 'Call this first to find the service ID needed for availability and booking.' This explicitly indicates when to use the tool and how it fits into the overall workflow with sibling tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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