Aurinia — booking across the network

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a real (mutation) action, interprets item based on establishment type, and for hostel returns a hold requiring payment. Annotations only indicate openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description provides valuable extra detail.

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 moderately concise but could be better structured. It bundles multiple types and return info into a single paragraph. While informative, a clearer format (e.g., bullet list) would improve readability.

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 complexity (nested objects, multiple item types, payment nuance), the description covers key points but omits return behavior for doctor and spa bookings. Without an output schema, this leaves partial ambiguity.

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 compensates by explaining the structure of the 'item' parameter for three cases (doctor, hostel, spa), including optional fields like promo_code. However, it does not explain the 'provider_id' parameter.

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 booking on behalf of a user ('РЕАЛЬНА дія: бронювання в закладі мережі від імені користувача'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel, find_providers, get_availability, etc., by specifying it performs actual bookings.

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 context by detailing item structures for different establishment types (doctor, hostel, spa) and the payment requirement for hostel bookings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use get_availability first').

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 destructive and non-readonly. Description adds 'REAL action' and consent requirement, but does not disclose other traits like error handling or side effects. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every part 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?

For a simple cancel tool with no output schema, description covers parameters, prerequisite, and constraint. Lacks return value or error info, but adequate.

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, description adds meaning by specifying that item must contain an id from list_my_bookings. It also explains provider_id and item relationship, though lacks full parameter formats.

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 cancels a booking, with specific verb 'cancel' and resource 'booking'. It provides parameter details and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'book' or 'reschedule'.

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 includes a prerequisite (id from list_my_bookings) and a constraint (requires consent), guiding the agent on when to use. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context implies 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?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it searches the Aurinia network but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like result limits or error handling. Adequate given annotations.

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 an example, efficient and front-loaded. Could be structured with clear parameter list but still 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?

No output schema, so description should explain return format. It doesn't mention what results look like (list, details), pagination, or empty result behavior. Incomplete for a search 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 description coverage is 0%, so description compensates by stating query uses a search term (with example), city, and type. However, no details on formats, expected values, or combination behavior. Minimally adequate.

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 finds facilities in the Aurinia network, with examples (doctor, hostel, spa). The verb 'find' and resource 'facility' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings which are for booking, cancelling, etc.

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 vs alternatives like get_provider_info or list_my_bookings. The description only mentions optional parameters, not context or use cases.

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 and openWorldHint. The description adds context about conditional parameters and promo_code effect, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or response structure.

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 and front-loads the mandatory provider_id requirement. It conveys key conditional logic without unnecessary 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?

The description omits information about the return value (availability and price format), pagination, or any limits. For a read-only tool with openWorldHint, this information is important for correct 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining conditional usage for doctor vs hostel and the purpose of promo_code. However, it does not specify date formats for check_in/check_out or the meaning of the guests parameter.

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 retrieves availability and price for a facility, differentiating between doctor and hostel types with distinct parameter requirements. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_providers' or 'get_provider_info'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains parameters but does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools for other tasks.

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 that the tool returns address and type, which is not in the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or response structure.

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 extra words. It is efficient but lacks structured presentation of key information.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameter and the expected response. It only covers the return content partially, omitting the provider_id explanation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the required provider_id parameter. The agent must infer its purpose from the name.

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 returns address and type of a provider, which combined with the name indicates a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state the action verb, and the purpose is inferred from context.

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 find_providers or get_availability. The description merely states what it does without any usage direction.

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. The description adds that authorization is required, results are sorted by date from nearest, and each booking has a status field with examples. It also advises distinguishing active from cancelled bookings. This adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second adds key details. There is no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 explains output includes bookings with status, sorted by date, and notes authorization required. It does not detail pagination or field types, but for a simple list tool in context with sibling tools, 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?

The input schema has one optional string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description explains that provider_id is optional and without it the first establishment is used, providing meaning not present in the schema. This compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 lists current/future bookings of the user, sorted by date from nearest, and distinguishes from sibling list_past_bookings. It specifies the status field and optional provider_id, 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 guidance on when to use the tool (for current/future bookings), mentions distinguishing active vs cancelled via status, and notes that provider_id is optional. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like book or cancel, though the sibling list_past_bookings is implicitly differentiated.

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. Description adds that it requires authorization and mentions pagination and status field, but does not disclose other behaviors like scope (e.g., only authenticated user's bookings) or rate limits.

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 short (one sentence), front-loaded with key information, and no extraneous text.

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, description explains that each booking has a status field but doesn't list other fields. It also doesn't explicitly state that it returns only the authenticated user's bookings. For a simple read-only list with 3 optional params, it's mostly 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 has 0% description coverage, so description fully compensates by explaining provider_id is optional, limit defaults to 20, and offset for pagination. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 lists past bookings for a user in an establishment, sorted by date descending. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'past bookings', and distinguishes from sibling 'list_current_bookings'.

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 vs alternatives. It implicitly suggests use for past bookings as opposed to current bookings, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool names.

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 that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), is idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context by stating it is a 'real action' (effecting change) and that establishment consent is needed, which goes beyond the annotations without 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing key constraints. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool has two parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: rescheduling action, same-day constraint, and consent requirement. It is complete enough for a moderately complex tool, though it omits success/error 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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that 'item' is a doctor object with fields {date, from, to} for same-day rescheduling. This adds meaning beyond the schema's mere definition of 'item' as an object, though it does not detail all possible properties.

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 that the tool is for rescheduling a booking at a network establishment. It specifies the action (перенести бронь) and the resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'book' (new booking) and 'cancel' (remove 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 usage for rescheduling within the same day and notes that establishment consent is required. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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