Aurinia — booking across the network

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the consent gating mechanism, the fact that hostel bookings are HOLDs needing payment, the silent failure of tg:// links, and that identity comes from Telegram consent rather than collected fields. This is a wealth of behavior not inferable from annotations alone.

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?

While lengthy, the description is front-loaded with an action statement, then uses labeled sections (Doctor:, Hostel:, Spa:, CONSENT:) to organize dense but necessary information. Every sentence adds critical operational detail, so the length is justified.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: consent_url/telegram.consent_url, consent_url_native, payment_url, and the immediate-success case. It also covers edge cases (silent tg:// failure, already-authorized retry), making it complete for a complex booking 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 schema lists only provider_id and item, with 50% description coverage (provider_id undocummented). The description compensates by explaining provider_id + item semantics, detailing item structures per venue type (doctor, hostel, spa), and explicitly warning not to ask for name/contact. This fully bridges the gap left by 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 states the tool's primary action clearly: 'REAL action: book at a network venue on the user's behalf.' It distinguishes from siblings like cancel, reschedule, and find_providers by being the actual booking action. It also specifies different item structures for doctor, hostel, and spa, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 an explicit workflow: call book directly, handle consent flow if consent_url is returned, retry after consent, and for hostels, note that booking returns a HOLD finalized by payment. It also explains when NOT to prompt for consent (if already authorized) and how to handle consent_url_native. This is superior guidance beyond simple 'use for booking'.

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 mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior: immediate cancellation, no confirmation step, decisive action, and conditional consent-link handling. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 front-loaded with the critical action and keeps each sentence purposeful. It avoids fluff; even the repetitions ('no confirmation', 'do NOT re-ask') reinforce the same essential rule without excessive verbosity.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the when, how, and what data to provide. It lacks return-value details or error handling, but the provided info is sufficient to invoke correctly and handle the main consent-link edge case.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining item as {booking_id} sourced from list_current_bookings, and mentions provider_id as a required companion. It doesn't fully detail the nested object structure, but enough for correct use.

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 'cancel' and identifies the resource 'a booking at a network venue,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like reschedule or book. It also states the immediate/no-confirmation nature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: when the user has said cancel. It provides exclusions (do not re-ask, do not ask consent up front) and directs the agent to source the booking id from list_current_bookings, giving clear operational guidance beyond mere intent.

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 mark it as read-only and open-world. The description adds that it returns a providers array and that provider_ids can be used downstream, giving practical behavioral context. It doesn't contradict annotations and contributes helpful integration details beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then give parameter hints and integration guidance. No redundancy or filler; every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, lists optional filters, and notes downstream use. Minor absence of pagination or default-result limitations, but given the open-world annotation and simple schema, it is adequately 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three optional parameters and gives an example for query ('vertebrologist'), but provides minimal guidance on valid values for city/type, only implying type may align with the listed categories. This is some added meaning but not comprehensive.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Find' and defines the resource as 'a venue in the Aurinia network,' listing example categories (doctor, hostel, spa). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like book or get_provider_info, which handle bookings or provider details.

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 states 'use a provider_id from it for get_availability / book,' indicating this tool is the preparatory lookup step before booking. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling get_provider_info. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is sufficient.

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 and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: availability=null almost always indicates wrong parameter names, a dorm bed is the default, and there is no room_type parameter. This gives the agent actionable diagnostic information, though it doesn't discuss return format or pricing details (mitigated by the output schema).

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 somewhat long but every sentence is informative and relevant. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides parameter usage, a default behavior, and a troubleshooting tip. No filler or redundancy; the structure is logical and efficient.

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's complexity (two provider types, multiple params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: required provider_id, parameter mapping, naming pitfalls, and default behavior. It doesn't explain how provider_id is obtained (likely from find_providers) but that is inferable. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 67% of parameters, but the description adds substantial meaning: it maps date to doctor and check_in/check_out/guests to hostel, enforces underscore naming, clarifies guests is an integer, states provider_id is required, and labels promo_code as optional. It also explicitly denies the existence of a room_type param, which is not in the schema. This far exceeds what the schema describes and fully compensates for uncovered 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 purpose as retrieving availability and price for a venue, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like book, cancel, and find_providers by being a read-only pre-booking lookup, and it explicitly notes the required provider_id.

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 usage instructions: required provider_id, venue-type-specific parameters (doctor vs hostel), exact underscore naming, no room_type param, and optional promo_code. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'use this before booking' or 'use find_providers to search providers', but the context strongly implies the tool's role. The troubleshooting hint for null availability further guides correct usage.

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?

The description adds 'no auth' and 'Read-only' beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, and mentions the return fields. This is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover errors or rate limits. No contradiction.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds unique value: what it returns, read-only/no auth, and when to use it. No wasted 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and security. The output schema handles return structure. It doesn't mention error handling, but that's not critical for such a simple 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by provider_id', which essentially repeats the parameter name without explaining its format, origin, or how it's used beyond as an identifier. This is minimal added meaning.

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 returns details for one venue by provider_id, listing specific fields (id, type, name, city, address). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_providers (which likely lists) and get_availability (which checks 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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use it to confirm a venue before get_availability / book.' This gives a clear use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it's not a 5.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral context: results are sorted by date (nearest first), each booking includes a status field to distinguish active vs cancelled, and requiring authorization. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but the annotation already conveys read-only safety, lowering the bar.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose/ordering, status field semantics, and parameter default. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and a read-only annotation, the description covers purpose, ordering, status, default parameter behavior, and authorization. It does not explicitly state the return format, but with no output schema expected, the provided detail is sufficient for effective use.

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 schema defines only provider_id with no description, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It does so by noting the parameter is optional and that omitting it defaults to the first venue, which adds meaningful usage context beyond the bare 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 lists the user's current/upcoming bookings at a network venue, ordering by date nearest first. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling list_past_bookings by specifying 'current/upcoming' rather than past, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool (to view active/upcoming bookings) and mentions the optional provider_id behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the distinction from list_past_bookings is implied through the 'current/upcoming' wording.

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 readOnlyHint already provided, the description adds useful behavioral details: requires authorization, each booking has a status field, and pagination via limit/offset. These go beyond the annotation and help the agent understand response structure and constraints.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information: sorting, status field, optional parameter, pagination defaults, and authorization. No fluff or repetition.

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 covers the essential return context (status field, sorted order) and parameter usage. It does not describe the exact response shape or error scenarios, but for a simple list operation with annotations, it is sufficiently 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining provider_id as optional, limit default as 20, and offset as a pagination control. It does not detail the format or relationship of provider_id, but the key semantics are present.

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 ('list') and resource ('the user's past bookings at a network venue'), and adds sorting context ('by date, most recent first'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_current_bookings' and other booking actions.

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 context for when to use is clear: it is for past bookings, implicitly contrasting with 'list_current_bookings'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the past/current distinction in the title and description provides sufficient usage guidance.

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?

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the atomic hold guarantee, the absence of upfront confirmation, and venue-dependent support. These are critical behaviors not apparent from the schema or annotation hints.

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 dense with important details but somewhat rambling. The opening 'REAL action:' is redundant, yet every sentence adds operational value. Could be structured better but remains efficient.

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 the main use cases, atomicity, consent behavior, and venue limitations, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. However, it does not describe the return format or how a consent link would be handled beyond mentioning it, leaving a minor gap.

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 coverage, the description compensates by specifying the item structure (doctor: {date, from, to}) and the same-day constraint. It does not fully define provider_id or enumerate all possible item types, but provides meaningful context.

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 reschedules a booking at a venue, specifying the atomic same-day mechanism. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing different-day cases to 'book again' and hostel cases to 'cancel and book again'.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: same-day rescheduling uses this tool, different-day means book again, and unsupported venues (hostels) require cancel+book. Also states the no-consent-required policy and consent-link exception.

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