Cup24.it Availability

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: automatic retry without filters if no results, and that results include a booking_url with pre-filled parameters.

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?

Well-structured with a label, purpose, usage, parameters, and output. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but remains efficient and 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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (slots with booking_url) and usage context, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers all 6 parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds context about the auto-retry behavior related to doctor/clinic filters and notes the start_day format, which provides incremental 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 'Search appointment slots/cards' and positions itself as a 'DETAIL TOOL' to be used after clinic selection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_available_clinics_map.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use directly when clinic is known, or after search_available_clinics_map selection' and mentions auto-retry behavior, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Could be improved by stating when not to use.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the tool renders a map/sidebar and waits for user interaction before triggering another call. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the interactive flow, though it does not mention rate limits or authentication.

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: the first states purpose and parameter summary, the second specifies the workflow. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence 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?

Given the parameter count (9) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's role in a multi-step process, the required parameters, and the subsequent tool call. However, it could briefly mention the absence of a direct return value or the widget's behavior.

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 descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by summarizing parameter groupings and requirements: 'city (required) + one of medical_service/doctor/clinic, optional date/time range.' This clarifies relationships and default behavior beyond individual schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover clinics with availability and render them on map/sidebar.' It specifies the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'advanced_search_availability' or 'smart_suggest_service', though it implies a workflow dependency.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Params: city (required) + one of medical_service/doctor/clinic, optional date/time range. Then wait for user click in widget; after selection run advanced_search_availability...' This provides a clear workflow and directs the agent to the next step, distinguishing from siblings.

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 indicate readonly, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral info: searches by partial name, returns specific fields (city names, coordinates, province, region). No contradictions.

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?

Compact at 3 sentences, front-loads purpose. The follow-up instruction is slightly extraneous but relevant and doesn't harm 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?

Simple tool (1 param, no output schema). Description lists return fields and provides usage context. Sufficient for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description's parameter note ('Partial city name...') exactly matches the schema description. No additional meaning beyond schema; baseline 3.

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 'Find cities by partial name' – clear verb+resource. Also specifies usage scenarios (unfamiliar city or needing coordinates) and mentions relationship with sibling tool advanced_search_availability, effectively distinguishing it.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'User mentions unfamiliar city or you need coordinates.' Also gives follow-up guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but provides clear context.

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 read-only and non-destructive; description adds that it runs parallel search and AI prediction, merges by relevance, and returns service names and IDs. Lacks edge-case warnings but 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?

Description is concise with front-loaded purpose and usage, though uses informal bullet points within text. No wasted sentences.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavior, output, and next steps. Lacks output format details but adequate for a search tool with two params and no output schema.

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%, so baseline 3. Description matches schema for text and top_k but does not add new semantic meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states it is a 'Smart service finder (text search + AI combined)' that returns service names and IDs, distinct from sibling tools like advanced_search_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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'User has vague symptoms/descriptions OR you need to explore service options before booking.' Also advises follow-up with advanced_search_availability.

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