Search available booking slots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name (full or partial, e.g., 'Firenze', 'Milan') | |
| end_day | No | Ending date for availability search (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| start_day | No | Starting date for availability search (YYYY-MM-DD, default: today) | |
| medical_service | Yes | Service name or symptom description (full or partial, e.g., 'Rx Braccio', 'blood test', 'back pain') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, filtering behavior, or limitations. It merely restates the function without providing insights beyond what annotations already 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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it is somewhat minimal and borders on tautology, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
As a search tool with four parameters, no output schema, and several siblings, the terse description does not address usage context, result expectations, or the distinction from the advanced search tool. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly 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% description coverage, documenting all four parameters including their formats and examples. Since the schema carries the semantic load, the description's lack of parameter details is acceptable, and the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Search available booking slots.' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'advanced_search_availability', relying only on the name 'simple' to hint at a distinction.
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 like 'advanced_search_availability' or 'search_available_clinics_map'. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
simple_search_availability appears to duplicate advanced_search_availability with no clear distinction in purpose or parameters. The other tools are distinct, but this overlap creates ambiguity in tool selection.
All names use snake_case, but conventions vary: search_available_clinics_map and search_suggest_city start with 'search', while advanced_search_availability, simple_search_availability, and smart_suggest_service use adjective prefixes. search_suggest_city is an awkward combination of two verbs. Still readable overall.
Five tools is well-scoped for a booking availability server, covering the essential search paths (city, service, clinic, slots) without unnecessary bloat.
The core discovery workflow (city -> service -> clinic -> availability) is covered, and advanced_search_availability returns booking_url for handoff. Minor gaps include no dedicated doctor search tool and the redundancy of simple_search_availability, but the surface is functional.
