Sharaloge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists what the response contains (portfolio, pricing tiers, specialties, ratings, reviews), which indirectly implies a read-only fetch. It does not mention error handling or auth requirements, but for a simple 'get by ID' operation, the main behavior is unambiguous.

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?

A single sentence with the critical scope (single artist by ID) front-loaded, followed by the specific data fields. No filler or repetition. 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 single-resource getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately outlines the expected return content. It does not detail the exact response structure, but given the low complexity and no output schema, the high-level field list is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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% — the schema already documents artistId as 'The ID of the artist'. The description adds that it returns a profile for a single artist, but that is essentially redundant with the tool name and schema. No new parameter-level meaning is added, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('full profile of a single Sharaloge artist by ID'), and enumerates the key content (portfolio, pricing tiers, specialties, ratings, reviews). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_artists (which would return a list) and reserve_booking (which is about bookings).

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 clear context: it is for fetching a single artist's profile when an ID is known. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ID' qualifier implicitly separates it from search_artists. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance exists, so it lacks the full directness of 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 explicitly states that the tool creates a booking, which implies a write operationtons. It also discloses the authentication requirement (authToken), which is a key behavioral aspect. The description does not detail side effects (e.g., whether it's idempotent, if it triggers notifications) or the response format, but given the lack of annotations, it does a reasonable job of setting expectations for a create operation.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and subject, and the second provides a critical usage constraint (authentication). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds a key caveat without any 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and its key prerequisite (authentication). The tool is a straightforward create operation, and the description covers the essential context. The schema handles parameter details, and the description does not need to explain return values since it is a create action and the caller likely expects a confirmation. The context is complete for safe 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 schema description coverage is high (88%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by stating the authentication requirement for the authToken parametereur, which is not explicitly described in the schema (the schema says 'Sharaloge customer JWT auth token' but the description emphasizes 'requires the customer to be authenticated'). This adds context beyond the schema, but most parameter meanings are already covered by the schema, so a score of 4 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: creating a booking reservation with a Sharaloge artist for a given date and time. It identifies the specific resource (booking) and the action (create), and the mention of 'Sharaloge' distinguishes it from generic booking tools. The description is specific enough to differentiate it from the sibling tools (get_artist_profile, search_artists) which are about viewing artist data, not creating bookings.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: when creating a reservation with a Sharaloge artist. It also states a prerequisite (customer must be authenticated with authToken), which guides the agent on when it's appropriate to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention any alternatives (like using search_artists for finding artists before booking), but the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the search purpose and filter categories. It does not disclose pagination behavior, how filtering combines with free-text search, handling of empty results, or whether results are ranked/ordered.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful example query. 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It covers the basic search intent but omits behavioral details like result format, pagination, filter semantics, and any prerequisites or fallback behavior, so an agent cannot fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by grouping location fields, specialty, price range, and rating, and provides a concrete example. However, it does not clarify page, limit, verified, search, or min/max price values, leaving significant gaps.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('makeup artists and beauty professionals on Sharaloge'), and enumerates filter dimensions. It clearly distinguishes this search tool from the sibling tools get_artist_profile and reserve_booking.

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 example 'find me a makeup artist in Lagos' gives the agent a clear trigger for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling tools as alternatives.

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