KARVE Booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating what data is returned (description, trainer, etc.). 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose and key details.

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 annotations cover safety and the description mentions return fields, the description is mostly complete. With an output schema present, missing return format is acceptable. Minor gap: optional parameter not explained.

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 explain parameters. It explains idSchedule (from search_classes) but does not mention the optional withinDays parameter, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves full details for one KARVE class by idSchedule, listing returned fields (description, trainer, studio, availability, booking link). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_classes which list classes, and next_available which finds 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?

The description notes that idSchedule comes from search_classes' JSON, providing clear context on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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 as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that it returns booking links, but lacks details on query behavior (e.g., partial vs exact match) or behavior when no results found.

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 with key information front-loaded. Could be more concise by combining but overall 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?

With output schema present, less emphasis on return values needed, but description lacks mention of what the returned list contains (e.g., class names, times) beyond 'booking links'. Slightly sparse given 3 optional parameters.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description should clarify meaning, especially for 'query' (e.g., search scope) and 'withinDays'.

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 it returns soonest upcoming KARVE classes with open spots, optionally matching an English query. It distinguishes from sibling tools like class_detail and search_classes by focusing on availability and immediacy.

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?

Description implies usage for finding immediate available classes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_classes. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context: the schedule is live with real-time availability, and the tool returns a per-class booking link. This complements 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first and adding key details (read-only, date format, language) in the second. Every word earns its place with no 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 8 parameters with no schema descriptions, a 2-sentence description is insufficient. An output schema exists but is not mentioned. The description lacks complete guidance on how to use the tool effectively, especially parameter semantics.

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 explain parameters. It mentions output (what's on, spots, trainer, booking link) but does not describe any of the 8 input parameters (e.g., days, query, trainer, startDate). This is a critical gap for a tool with many 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 searches a live KARVE class schedule in Jeddah, returning availability, spots, trainer, and a booking link. It distinguishes from siblings effectively: class_detail focuses on a specific class, next_available on the next available class, and studio_info on studio 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 provides useful context: it is a live, real-time schedule, read-only, with date format DD/MM/YYYY (KSA) and search in English. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives like class_detail for specific classes or next_available for next availability.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the specific content categories (pricing, policies, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what the tool returns.

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 wasted words. The first sentence lists the content, the second tells when to use. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the scope well. It might be helpful to mention the output format, but the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explains the output (set of facts) even though no input is required. Schema coverage is effectively 100%.

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 provides 'authoritative KARVE facts' listing specific content (pricing, policies, hours, location, contact). It distinguishes from sibling tools (class_detail, next_available, search_classes) by focusing on studio info rather than class 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 phrase 'Use instead of guessing' implies the tool should be used when factual studio info is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling context and description make the usage scope clear.

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