List available 60-minute paid AI-consultation slots with Akshay Shetty (EUR 500, timezone Europe/Tallinn). Returns ISO-8601 UTC start times to pass to request_consultation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides all behavioral context: slots are 60-minute, paid, with a specific person, and returns ISO-8601 UTC times. It does not specify if the list changes frequently or if there are limits, but it is adequate.
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 essential information. No redundant words, and 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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, prerequisites (who, price, timezone), and output format, enabling correct invocation and follow-up.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description naturally covers the parameter aspect. It adds meaning beyond the empty schema by specifying the slot characteristics.
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 specifies the exact action (list), the resource (60-minute paid AI-consultation slots with Akshay Shetty), and key details (price, timezone, output format). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'request_consultation'.
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 implies the tool should be used before 'request_consultation' by noting that it returns start times to pass to that tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available slots, the other reserves a slot and provides a payment link. There is no ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_consultation_slots and request_consultation), making the purpose clear at a glance.
With only 2 tools, the surface is minimal, but it fits the narrow domain of booking a single consultation service. Slightly under but reasonable.
The tools cover listing and reserving slots, but lack cancellation, status checking, or manual payment handling beyond the link. Notable but not critical gaps for this domain.