Bay Area Mobile Dog Wash Booking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the non-obvious async behavior: this files a REQUEST, the owner confirms shortly after, and the customer then gets the confirmation email — plus an instruction to tell the user. It still omits failure modes, duplicate-booking behavior, and cancellation policy, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the most operationally important caveat (it is a request, not a confirmed booking). Every sentence carries actionable content, though the promotional instruction and the 'don't interrogate' aside are slightly conversational padding.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, what to verify pre-call, the promo, and how to populate optional fields. It leaves pricing implications beyond dog_size, add-on selection and expected response/error handling unspecified.

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 schema already explains start (UTC ISO from get_available_slots), dog_size tiers with weight bands, notes, and the promo field with WASH10. The description mainly restates the promo guidance and adds only the 'fill optional fields from conversation' steer, which is marginal value over structured data.

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 ('Request a mobile dog wash') and ties the timing input to the sibling tool that produces it ('at one of the times from get_available_slots'). An agent can distinguish this booking action from get_available_slots and get_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?

Gives clear sequencing (must pick a time returned by get_available_slots) and explicit preconditions (confirm exact PT time, name, email, address, dog size before calling; pull optional fields from conversation without interrogation). It does not name when-not-to-use or point at get_services for add-on discovery, so it stops short of full routing 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (date → UTC ISO start times), instructs presentation in Pacific Time, and states the 14-day default window. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, keeping it short of a 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return format, with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully covers return shape, timezone handling, and default window. Only permission/auth context is missing, which is a minor gap for a read-only list tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents start_date and end_date fully. The description's restatement of the 14-day default adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing open appointment times for a mobile dog wash. It is functionally distinct from the booking and services siblings, but never names or contrasts them 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 by the read-only availability framing; there is no statement of when to call this versus book_wash or get_services, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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 burden. It transparently discloses the scope of returned content (services, size-based pricing, add-ons, discount), which is the main behavioral trait an agent needs for a read-only info tool. It doesn't describe auth or whether results are static, but for a zero-parameter catalog call those are minor.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the routing instruction. The content list is slightly dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what questions it can answer.

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 static, zero-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns and when to reach for it. No return-value explanation is required since there's no output schema. It could more explicitly route against the two booking siblings to be fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 and resource: it returns what Bay Area Mobile Dog Wash offers, and enumerates the content (services, prices by dog size, add-ons, first-wash discount). It also positions itself relative to the booking siblings by saying to call it first for questions, though it doesn't name book_wash or get_available_slots 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?

"Call this first to answer questions about the service" gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies it precedes booking flows, which is the key routing decision against book_wash and get_available_slots. It doesn't state when-not to use it or name the alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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