Cup24.it Availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context such as date rules (e.g., 'tomorrow' meaning day after today) and automatic retry without filters, though it could mention result limits or pagination.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema details. Efficient 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?

No output schema, but description mentions returning slots with booking_url and pre-filled params. Covers essential aspects for a search tool with 7 parameters (1 required), including critical date rules.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining required city, date format YYYY-MM-DD, date interpretation rules, and retry behavior when doctor/clinic filters yield no results.

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 'Search' and resource 'appointment slots/cards', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_available_clinics_map' by specifying when to use this tool directly or after selection.

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 provides usage context: 'Use directly when clinic is known, or after search_available_clinics_map selection.' Also explains automatic retry behavior when filters yield no results, giving clear guidance on when and how the tool behaves.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool renders a map/sidebar and waits for user interaction. It also explains date rules for 'tomorrow' and 'next week', which go beyond the schema. 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?

Description is front-loaded with '[MAP TOOL]' and includes a clear workflow. It is somewhat long but each sentence adds information (parameter requirements, date rules, post-call instruction). Could be slightly more concise.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: parameter grouping, date interpretation, and the follow-up call. It does not explain what the map/sidebar shows or error cases, but it is adequate for a read-only interactive 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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters (city required + one of medical_service/doctor/clinic) and explaining date rules (e.g., 'next week' means calendar Monday-Sunday). Some parameters like distance and start_time are not elaborated 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?

The description clearly states it discovers clinics with availability and renders them on a map/sidebar. It specifies required and optional parameters, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like simple_search_availability or 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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: requires city and one of medical_service/doctor/clinic, with optional date/time range. It also instructs the agent to wait for user click then call advanced_search_availability. However, no explicit when-not-to-use 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?

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 readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention any limitations, pagination, or data scope beyond what annotations implicitly cover.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function, with no unnecessary words or 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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It omits details about response format, pagination, or error handling, but annotations cover safety. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the overall purpose, meeting the 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 clearly states 'Search available booking slots,' defining verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'advanced_search_availability,' which is implied by the tool name but not explicitly addressed.

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 alternatives like 'advanced_search_availability' or 'search_available_clinics_map,' leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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.