bookrails

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

The description does not disclose side effects like modifying availability or require authorization details. It only mentions returning a confirmation code, which is minimal behavioral information for a mutation tool.

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 very concise at one sentence, which is good for brevity, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but incomplete.

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?

Given 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., ensuring slot is open via find_times) and does not describe the return value format or error conditions.

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 description provides no explanations for any of the 8 parameters, even though schema coverage is 0%. The agent is left guessing the meaning of api_key, provider_id, service_id, slot_id, and customer fields.

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 books an open slot for a customer and returns a confirmation code. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_booking and find_times, but could explicitly mention it is for creating a new 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_times or get_availability. There is no indication of prerequisites or context for when booking is appropriate.

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 provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that cancellation applies the provider's policy and may incur a fee, indicating side effects. However, it lacks detail on conditions like time constraints or failure scenarios.

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?

One sentence of 11 words is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., separating purpose from effects). Not wasteful, but slightly under-specified.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and key behavioral effect (fee). It lacks usage context, return value explanation, and failure handling, making it adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema's basic titles. The parameters are self-explanatory, but the description should confirm their meaning or provide context like source or format.

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 clearly states the verb (cancel) and resource (booking), and adds specificity about applying the provider's policy and reporting fees. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reschedule_booking or get_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reschedule_booking). The description does not provide context for appropriate use cases 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool registers a mandate and returns an ID, but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state or triggers workflows), error conditions, or rate limits. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences with no wasted words. The action and result are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of 7 parameters with no descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., is it called after register_agent?), nor does it describe the mandate's lifecycle or relationship with other tools like pay_booking. A description of return format or error handling is also 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'budget/category/time limits' but does not map these to the actual parameters (budget_cents, category, expires_at). Critical parameters like api_key, mandate_type, subject, and service_id are completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value 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 clearly states the tool registers an AP2 spending mandate with budget/category/time limits, for an agent to pay human-not-present. It uses a specific verb (register) and resource (mandate), and the mandate_id return value clarifies the output. Among sibling tools like register_agent and booking-related tools, this tool's distinct purpose is 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a registered agent) or scenarios where other tools like book or pay_booking would be more appropriate. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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 exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the input-output mapping without details on authentication (api_key required), error handling, rate limits, or what 'matching' entails (e.g., fuzzy matching vs. exact slots).

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 very concise—one sentence with an example. It achieves clarity without wordiness, though it could benefit from a brief structured breakdown of key parameters. Still, efficiency is high.

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?

Given 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required api_key and provider_id, nor what the output format is. The tool is significantly under-documented.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It only briefly mentions 'when' via example but does not describe api_key, provider_id, or service_id. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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: it takes natural language availability queries like 'next Tuesday afternoon' and returns matching open slots. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_availability which likely use structured parameters.

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 for natural language queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_availability, search_providers, or book. No exclusions or context is given.

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 full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'list open slots' without mentioning side effects, error conditions, data freshness, or authentication requirements beyond the presence of an API key parameter.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices helpful detail. It is not structured beyond a plain sentence, and while it avoids waste, it may be too minimal to be adequately informative.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or typical usage, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and 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 description provides zero information about parameters. With schema coverage at 0%, the five parameters (api_key, provider_id, service_id, available_from, available_to) remain completely unexplained. The agent has no clue about their meaning or format.

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 action (list) and the resource (provider's open slots). It is straightforward and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_provider' and 'find_times'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_times' or 'search_providers'. No context is given for prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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. It indicates a read operation and a specific behavioral trait (includes cancellation fee). However, it does not mention authentication requirements or what happens if the booking_id is invalid.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a unique detail. However, it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides key information: it returns booking details and the applicable cancellation fee. It is complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention that the fee depends on current cancellation policies.

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 two required parameters (api_key, booking_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description gives no explanation of these parameters, leaving the agent unclear about what values to provide and why.

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 action: 'Retrieve a booking'. It includes a specific detail about the fee if cancelled now, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'book' (create) and 'cancel_booking' (cancel). The verb+resource is precise.

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 context (includes cancellation fee) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_quote' or 'find_times'. Usage is implied but not clarified with when-not or alternatives.

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, placing the full burden on the description. The description mentions 'live signed price quote' but does not disclose behavioral details such as idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter.

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 comprises two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits details about the 'live signed' aspect, the quote format, and how to use the result with pay_booking. The information is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 hints at 'service+slot' (implying service_id and slot_id) but does not explain slug, provider_id, or how parameters relate. It adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'live signed price quote for a service+slot'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_quote by adding the 'signed' qualification. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 says 'Always call this before pay_booking', providing clear usage context. It does not exclude alternative tools or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for the main use case.

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 exist, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only, idempotent operation. The api_key parameter implies authentication, but this is not explained.

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 at one sentence, but it omits critical information like what the tool returns or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness.

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?

Given two required parameters (including an authentication key) and no output schema, the description should detail the return structure and usage constraints. It only lists three profile fields, missing overall scope and dependency info.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for the parameters 'api_key' or 'provider_id'. It does not explain their roles or expected values, leaving the agent to infer.

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 it returns a provider profile with services, prices, and cancellation policy. It is clear that the tool retrieves provider details, and the name 'get_provider' reinforces this. However, it lacks a verb and could be misinterpreted as the tool itself being a profile.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_providers' or 'get_availability'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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 provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states dynamic pricing but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, or behavior when slot_id is omitted (default empty string). Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. Efficient but could benefit from bullet points for parameter roles. Still well within acceptable conciseness.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not explain return values beyond 'exact price'. Given complexity (4 params, no schema, no annotations), it is incomplete for an AI agent to correctly handle responses.

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%, meaning parameter details are entirely absent. The description only hints at slot_id's role but does not explain api_key, provider_id, or service_id. For 4 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'exact price for a service', with additional context about dynamic pricing based on slot time. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_availability (availability not price) and book (creating a booking). However, it could be more explicit about the output.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_times or get_availability. The description mentions slot_id dynamically, but lacks explicit use cases or exclusions.

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?

Discloses payment token type and return format, but lacks detail on side effects, error behavior, authorization needs, or idempotency. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.

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, front-loaded with key information, no redundant words.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers core behavior but lacks detail on prerequisites (e.g., getting a quote) and parameter formats. Not fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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?

Adds meaning for payment_token and mandate_id beyond schema, but does not describe quote structure, quote_sig, or other parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates.

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 it books and pays using a delegated one-shot payment token, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'book' which likely only books. It also specifies return value.

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?

Mentions when to use mandate_id for autonomous scenarios, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote or book.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions receiving an API key but does not reveal potential duplicate registration behavior, error conditions, or idempotency. The description is minimal.

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 very concise at two sentences, with the first stating the core action and the second providing a usage hint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description should cover return format, required parameter details, and behavioral traits. It fails to explain the API key format, agent ID, or error handling, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no value beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of 'name', 'organization', or 'contact_email' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their roles.

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 registers an agent and returns an API key, with the verb 'register' and object 'agent'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all booking-related, so no confusion.

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 this should be called first by saying 'Pass this api_key to every other tool', but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling registration tools, the guidance is acceptable but not explicit.

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 full burden. It states the core action (move booking) but omits critical behavioral details such as what happens to the old slot, whether availability is verified, or if the booking must be confirmed. The description is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 9 words with no extraneous information. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover edge cases, side effects, or how it differs from cancel+book. Additional context is needed for full understanding.

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 description adds context for booking_id (confirmed) and new_slot_id (open slot) but does not explain api_key nor provide format or validation details. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but remains insufficient for all 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 uses a specific verb 'Move' and identifies the resource as a 'confirmed booking' and target as 'a different open slot for the same service'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like book (new booking), cancel_booking, and get_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 description implies the tool is used to reschedule a booking, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., cancel and rebook). It mentions the constraint 'for the same service' but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'with live availability' but does not disclose the read-only nature, required authentication (api_key is required but not mentioned), rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key action. However, it lacks necessary detail about parameters and behavior, making it under-informative rather than concise. It could be restructured to include essential facts without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain filtering, return values, or the role of the api_key. An agent would have difficulty knowing how to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, yet the description adds almost no parameter information. It mentions 'live availability' which implies time-related parameters (available_from, available_to) and categories, but does not explain the purpose of query, location, or the required api_key. The description provides minimal added semantic value.

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 verb 'Discover' and the resource 'providers' with examples of categories and mentions 'live availability'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_provider and get_availability by implying a broader search functionality. However, it could be more explicit about the scope and how it differs from find_times.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like get_provider or find_times. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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