seelig.ai booking

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real context: 30-minute call duration, single-service scoping, date-range bounds, and an ISO 8601 timestamp format with UTC offset. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no slots match.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the return format and then the date constraints. Slightly packed for the constraint clause, but every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does carry the return shape (ISO 8601 open start times with offset). The main remaining gap is timeZone semantics — whether returned times are converted to the caller's zone — and the link to the booking step.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains from/to well (YYYY-MM-DD, today onward, to at most 13 days after from) and lightly touches service ('about one service'), but timeZone is never addressed beyond the vague 'UTC offset included', leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Returns open start times' — plus the meeting shape (30-minute video call about one service). It is clearly distinguishable in function from list_services and request_booking, but never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-booking availability step that feeds request_booking. There is no explicit 'use this before booking' or 'do not use this to book' statement, and no alternative named.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it enumerates the returned fields and currency/unit conventions and implies the result set is complete ('every'), i.e. no pagination. It does not discuss error cases or ordering, so it stops short of 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the field enumeration is the only elaboration, which is justified because no output schema exists.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the field inventory that the schema omits and documents both language options, which is close to sufficient. It omits any statement about result size or pagination behavior beyond the implicit 'every'.

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% and the single 'lang' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'in English or German' restates the enum values and only marginally extends meaning beyond the schema's 'Language of names and descriptions'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every seelig.ai service') plus the exact fields returned (id, price in CHF, duration in weeks, deliverable, page URL). The scope word 'every' and the sibling set (get_free_slots, request_booking) make it obvious this is the catalog tool, not a booking tool.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead' guidance. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for discovering the service catalog prior to booking. Neither get_free_slots nor request_booking is referenced, so the routing must be inferred from the names.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the irreversible confirmation email ('cannot be unsent') and the deferred-booking flow ('nothing is booked until they confirm'). This is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs before triggering a non-idempotent, destructive write.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most consequential behavioral fact (the unsendable email). No filler.

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?

Behavior is well covered for a tool whose annotations already flag it as destructive and non-idempotent, and no output schema is needed. However, with 8 params at 0% schema coverage, the definition is incomplete on the input side.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only faintly gestures at service, start, name and email while leaving lang, timeZone, notes, website and the 32-value service enum entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Requests'), resource ('30-minute first call'), and scope ('about one service at an open start time'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_free_slots and list_services without opening any schema.

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?

'At an open start time' implies the caller needs slot data from get_free_slots, and 'one service' implies list_services, but neither is stated as an explicit prerequisite or alternative. No when-not guidance is given, so usage is only implied.

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