get_availabilityV1 does NOT hold live table availability — availability is checked on the phone call at booking time. This tool returns the merchant's reservation policy, structured hours, and holiday exceptions so you can pick a plausible time before calling place_booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merchant_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description transparently discloses the key limitation: no live table availability. It also states the return contents (policy, hours, holidays). Additional behavioral context like idempotency is not necessary for this simple read operation.
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, no extraneous words. The key limitation is front-loaded, and the purpose is directly stated.
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 gives a high-level idea of return contents but lacks detail on specific fields or structure. Given no output schema, this gap may force agents to guess the exact response format.
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 and the only parameter (merchant_id) is not elaborated in the description. The agent must infer its meaning from context, which is minimal. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance.
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 merchant reservation policy, hours, and holiday exceptions, and distinguishes it from live availability tools by noting it does not hold real-time data. It also relates it to place_booking for picking plausible times.
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 the tool is used to pick a plausible time before calling place_booking, and clarifies that live availability is checked during the phone call. Provides clear context but does not explicitly list 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clear and distinct purpose: booking operations (place, modify, cancel, status), merchant discovery (search, details, availability), registry metadata, and feedback submission. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern using underscore_case (e.g., place_booking, get_merchant, search_merchants). Verbs are descriptive and consistent across the set.
9 tools are well-scoped for a booking registry server, covering all necessary operations without being overly numerous or sparse. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search merchants, get details and availability, place/modify/cancel bookings, check status, submit feedback, and registry metadata. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.