Find free requestable lesson times using coach working windows and busy intervals. The response never includes private learner data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| coach_slug | No | daria-klishina | |
| service_slug | No | single-vocal-lesson | |
| user_timezone | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key privacy trait ('never includes private learner data') and the calculation basis ('working windows and busy intervals'), but omits authentication, rate-limiting, or failure behaviors.
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 the primary purpose stated first and a secondary privacy note second. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?
With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the tool's core operation and parameter interplay remain underspecified. The description is adequate for a high-level gist but lacks enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it with correct parameters, especially with sibling tools present.
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%, yet the description offers no explanation of any parameters, such as coach_slug, date_from/to, or user_timezone. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema's structural details.
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: finding free requestable lesson times using coach working windows and busy intervals. It goes beyond a tautology but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_lesson_options', which may offer similar capabilities.
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 is for searching availability but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. No information distinguishes this from 'list_lesson_options' or indicates when to prefer 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 lesson tools are cleanly separated: request creation, options listing, availability search, and general info all target different resources/actions. The main confusion risk is in the social pipeline, where create_social_post and publish_social_post can both look like the way to get a post live, and the two upsert tools are behaviorally similar even though their targets differ.
Most names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_lesson_request, list_social_posts, publish_social_post, search_lesson_availability, upsert_social_channel. However, voice_school_info breaks the verb pattern, and create_social_post is actually a create-or-update operation while other create/update tools use the upsert prefix, creating a minor semantic inconsistency.
At nine tools the absolute count is reasonable and within the ideal 3-15 range. However, five of the nine tools target social media management, which feels like a second domain bolted onto a lesson-booking server, so the set is slightly overbroad for its stated purpose.
The lesson-request flow covers info, options, availability, and request creation, but then stops; there is no way to list, update, or cancel requests, though creation is intentionally request-first. The social-post flow supports create/update, publish, and list, but only lists published posts and has no delete/unpublish or draft-listing operation, leaving lifecycle coverage incomplete.