Enrichment.Kids Activity Marketplace

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations confirming safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what the tool returns (spots remaining, sold-out status, waitlist availability, drop-in dates) since no output schema exists. It also specifies 'real-time' to indicate data freshness.

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 efficiently structured: first states purpose, second combines usage prerequisites with return value documentation. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Complete for a read-only availability checker. Covers prerequisites (get_activity_details), specific inputs with their sources, and documents return values (spots, waitlist, etc.) to compensate for missing output schema. Appropriately scoped to the tool's complexity.

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 that parameters come from get_activity_details. The description repeats this guidance ('returned by get_activity_details') without adding significant new semantic meaning, syntax constraints, or format examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 ('Check') with a clear resource ('real-time availability for a specific session'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like search_activities (which finds activities) and get_activity_details (which gets details) by focusing on availability status.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Use the module id and session id returned by get_activity_details.' It also includes a clear exclusion ('not the id from search_activities'), preventing common parameter errors. However, it doesn't explicitly address when to use this versus get_provider_info.

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?

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds crucial behavioral details: (1) two URL types exist per session with distinct purposes, (2) share_url bypasses listing to checkout directly, (3) comprehensive data payload includes nested pricing/availability data. No contradictions with 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?

Two dense sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with critical URL guidance (share_url vs url) that prevents user-facing errors, followed by scope declaration. Every word earns 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?

Absent output schema, description compensates by enumerating returned data structures (sessions with pricing, provider info, location). Addresses the 2-parameter simplicity adequately; mentions neither rate limits nor error states, but unnecessary for read-only detail retrieval of this scope.

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% with both 'slug' and 'module_id' fully documented in JSON schema (including preference guidance for slug). Description rightly focuses on behavior/output rather than repeating parameter definitions, meeting baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'full details for a specific enrichment activity' and lists returned data (description, sessions, pricing, availability, provider, location). The term 'specific' effectively distinguishes this from sibling 'search_activities' (discovery) and 'get_provider_info' (narrower scope).

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?

Provides clear contextual signal through 'specific enrichment activity' implying use after identification (vs search). Critically, mandates 'always use share_url when helping a user register or purchase' — explicit behavioral guidance for output utilization. Lacks explicit contrast naming siblings as alternatives (e.g., 'do not use for searching').

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read access. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what gets returned: both the provider profile and all their public activities. This scope disclosure helps set expectations for response size and content.

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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. Minor redundancy between 'active listings' and 'all their public activities', but this serves to clarify scope rather than waste space. Appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It compensates for missing output schema by describing return values ('provider details and all their public activities'). Combined with readOnly annotations, this provides sufficient context for 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?

With 100% schema description coverage (organization_id described as 'Provider organization ID'), the baseline is 3. The description implicitly references the parameter by mentioning 'organization' in parentheses, but adds no additional semantic detail about format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('profile and active listings', 'provider details and public activities'). It distinguishes from siblings (get_activity_details, search_activities) by focusing on the organization/provider entity rather than individual activities.

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 usage by clarifying the scope (returns provider details AND all their public activities), which helps distinguish from activity-specific siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like search_activities or get_activity_details.

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?

Adds pagination behavior ('paginated list'), return field details ('listing-page url fields'), and workflow integration beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. Clarifies the discovery vs purchase workflow. Could add details about default sorting or rate limiting, but annotations cover safety profile sufficiently.

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 sentences with zero waste: workflow instruction first (critical for siblings), search scope second, return format/third. Front-loaded with the most important distinction (call get_activity_details next for purchasing). No redundancy with schema or annotations.

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?

Complete for a 13-parameter search tool: covers workflow integration with siblings, explains pagination despite no output schema, clarifies return values (urls vs slugs/ids), and defines the domain scope (children's enrichment). No output schema exists but description adequately compensates.

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% (all 13 parameters fully documented in schema). Description provides logical grouping ('by location, age range, date, or keyword') but does not add format constraints, validation rules, or semantic relationships beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb 'Search' with clear resource scope 'children's enrichment activities (camps, classes, after-school programs)'. Distinguishes from siblings by contrasting listing-page URLs (this tool) vs session-level share_url checkout links (get_activity_details). Complete definition of what the tool retrieves.

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?

Excellent workflow guidance: explicitly states to call get_activity_details after this for registration/purchase, creating a clear sequential usage pattern. Explains the distinction between discovery (this tool) vs checkout (sibling), guiding the agent when to invoke each tool in the user journey.

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