Surf Session Finder

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. It explicitly states the output fields and filtering capabilities, implying a read-only query operation. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or ordering, but for a search tool this is sufficient.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, output fields, and filter options. It is front-loaded with the main action, has no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context: it names return fields, filter capabilities, and the resource type. It does not specify sorting or defaults, but the schema covers defaults. Overall, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter explanations. The description's mention of filtering by level, minimum spots, or time window mirrors the schema without adding new semantics. No additional parameter relationships or formats are disclosed, so the baseline score of 3 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 finds available surf sessions at a pool, with a specific verb and resource. It also lists returned data (date, time, skill level, available spots, booking URL) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_session_levels, list_pools) by focusing on session availability.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (finding sessions) and mentions filter options (level, minimum spots, time window). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to get_session_levels for level names or list_pools for pool IDs.

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 full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a safe, read-only operation, and the examples clarify the return content. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as error handling, authentication requirements, or whether the tool can fail for invalid pool IDs. This is adequate for a simple lookup but not fully transparent.

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 tool's purpose with examples, and the second gives actionable guidance for using the output. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (difficulty levels with examples) and how to use the result with find_sessions. The parameter description also points to list_pools for valid inputs, covering the full workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the pool_id parameter already documented as 'use list_pools to get valid values'. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not introduce format, syntax, or additional constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available session difficulty levels for a surf pool'), and provides concrete examples (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by tying the output to 'find_sessions', making its unique role evident.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use the level names with find_sessions', giving clear downstream usage. It also indirectly references 'list_pools' via the parameter description for obtaining a valid pool_id. While it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' caveats, the guidance for this simple getter is strong and unambiguous.

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 indicates a read-only list operation and mentions the informational purpose (providing pool_id for other tools). It does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, but 'List' clearly implies a safe read operation. Minor gap: it doesn't mention data freshness or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 no redundant wording. The first sentence states the action and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers its purpose, output, and usage ordering relative to other tools. It explicitly mentions the return fields (IDs, names, locations), so nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter explanations are needed. The description implicitly communicates that the tool takes no inputs and returns all pools. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately covers the lack of parameters.

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 with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('supported surf pools'), scope ('worldwide'), and output fields ('IDs, names, and locations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pools, not sessions or levels. The additional note about getting valid pool_id values clarifies its role as a prerequisite.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Always call this first to get valid pool_id values for the other tools.' This provides clear usage context and explains the dependency for sibling tools, making it obvious why this tool should be invoked before others.

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