Voice School Lesson Booking

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral boundary (never confirms or schedules), which is valuable. However, it omits other potential side effects like notifications, permissions, or idempotency, but for a creation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 core action, and no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second clarifies constraints.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. With 13 parameters and no annotations, it fails to explain the meaning or usage of most fields, particularly the slugs and scheduling-related params. The mention of contact method is partial and conflicting with the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name' and 'at least one contact method' but only implicitly, and does not explain most of the 13 parameters (coach_slug, service_slug, requested_start, etc.). Additionally, it contradicts the schema by requiring a contact method when the schema only requires name, which could mislead an agent.

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 creates a request-first lead for an online vocal lesson, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_lesson_options, search_lesson_availability, voice_school_info) by explicitly noting this does not confirm a lesson or create a schedule item, setting it apart from search/list/info 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 provides clear context: use this to create a lead, not to confirm a lesson or schedule. It gives a negative constraint ('never confirms a lesson or creates a private schedule item') but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of full when-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating 'active' (filtering only active services) and 'live' (real-time database source). However, it does not disclose the read-only nature, potential side effects, or any limitations such as pagination or required permissions, which would be expected given the absence of 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It clearly states the purpose, target coach, and data source, making it mostly complete. However, the lack of parameter explanation and explicit usage guidance relative to siblings slightly reduces completeness, though the output schema compensates for return-value details.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'for a coach' which loosely maps to coach_slug, but it completely ignores the language parameter. There is no explanation of parameter formats, defaults, or how they affect the output, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('active lesson services and prices for a coach') plus the source ('live Voice School database'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lesson_request (creation), search_lesson_availability (availability search), and voice_school_info (general school info).

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: to retrieve active lesson services and prices for a specific coach. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the distinctions obvious, so the context is sufficient without overt when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses how the tool works ('using coach working windows and busy intervals') and adds a privacy guarantee ('The response never includes private learner data'). This goes beyond the basic 'search' concept and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or read-only status explicitly. For a read-only search tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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, both front-loaded with essential information. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose, and the second provides a key privacy note. No redundant filler or fluff; every word 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?

The tool has six optional parameters and an output schema, so the description needs to explain how parameters relate to the search behavior. It does not explain the purpose of date_from/date_to, limit, or user_timezone. While the output schema covers return values, the lack of parameter guidance and absence of annotations leaves gaps for an agent trying to customize a search. The high-level purpose is clear, but the description is not fully complete for effective invocation in varied scenarios.

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 0% — no parameter descriptions exist. The description does not mention any of the six parameters (limit, date_to, date_from, coach_slug, service_slug, user_timezone). It only vaguely refers to 'coach working windows and busy intervals,' which hints at coach/service relevance but provides no concrete meaning for the parameters. The tool name and schema titles carry some meaning, but the description adds negligible value for parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Find free requestable lesson times using coach working windows and busy intervals.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('free requestable lesson times'), and the method distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lesson_request (which creates) and list_lesson_options (which lists options). It is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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's usage context (searching for available slots) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, such as 'Use this to check real-time availability, as opposed to list_lesson_options which gives fixed offerings.' Thus, the usage guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. 'Public description, policy, and catalog links' suggests an informational, read-only operation, but it never explicitly states that no data is modified or how the language parameter affects the output.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the core subject is front-loaded. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full behavioral statement, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks usage context and fails to explain when to call this tool relative to siblings. It also omits the language parameter's role, leaving the description incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 only parameter, language, is not mentioned in the description. The schema provides only the property name and default 'en', with 0% description coverage, so the description does not compensate by clarifying supported values or effect on 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 identifies the resource (Voice School online vocal lesson requests) and states that the tool provides public description, policy, and catalog links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (create, list, search), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be called before creating or searching for lesson requests, nor does it reference the sibling tools.

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