Рудько — лікар-вертебролог (Чернівці)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is real (not a simulation) and requires authorization, and imposes a daily limit. However, it does not mention what happens if a booking already exists for that slot or day, or whether the operation is reversible.

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, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, realness, prerequisites, and a constraint.

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 simplicity (2 string params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, authorization requirements, format, and a behavioral limit. It does not describe the response format, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 add meaning beyond the schema. It only provides basic format hints (YYYY-MM-DD for date, HH:MM for time) but no additional constraints, valid ranges, or examples. This is minimal addition for the 0% 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 uses a specific verb ('створює') and resource ('запис на прийом'), clearly indicating the tool creates a real appointment. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's a real action, not a simulation, and the sibling tools (cancel, list, reschedule) are different operations.

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 the prerequisite of user consent via Telegram OAuth with scope booking:write, and a constraint of one booking per day. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you want to book a slot', the context and constraints are clear enough to guide 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?

Discloses that it is a 'REAL action' requiring user consent and authorization, but does not detail side effects or reversibility. Adequate given no 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?

Two efficient sentences, each adding value: purpose and source of id, then authorization and alternative. No word wasted.

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 purpose, parameter source, authorization, and alternative tool. Lacks details on return value or side effects, but is adequate for a simple cancellation 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 has 0% description coverage but the description adds meaning by specifying that the id comes from list_my_bookings, compensating for the gap.

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 verb 'cancels' and the resource 'real booking by id', distinguishing it from siblings like reschedule_booking and book_slot.

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 mentions authorization requirements (via Telegram OAuth) and points to an alternative tool (reschedule_booking) for changing time.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only lists the type of information returned (specialization, address, etc.) without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 in Ukrainian that concisely lists key information items. While it could be more structured (e.g., starting with 'Returns information about...'), it is efficient and without 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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate information about what is returned (specialization, address, etc.). However, it does not specify the output format, the context (e.g., for the current user's associated clinic), or any limitations, leaving some gaps.

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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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 provides information about the clinic/doctor, including specialization, address, slot duration, rules, and how to book. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle booking, cancellation, and listing of 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 for obtaining general clinic info but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any preconditions. It provides context like rules (one booking per day) but lacks explicit 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Лише читання (не бронює)' (read only, does not book), disclosing the non-destructive nature. Could be more detailed about auth or rate limits, but adequate for a simple read tool.

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 well-structured sentences with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: purpose, location, parameter guidance, and safety note.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: doctor specialty, location, parameter behavior, and safety. It could mention what the output (list of slots) looks like, but not required.

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 100% with a concise description. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior when the optional date parameter is omitted (returns all nearest days), which goes beyond the schema's format hint.

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 retrieves free slots for a specific doctor and location (вертебролога, Чернівці), distinguishing it from sibling tools like book_slot and cancel_booking. The verb 'get' and resource 'free slots' are explicit.

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 clear context: describes the optional date parameter and its effect (without date returns all nearest available days). Implicitly guides when to use (before booking), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement and implies read-only by listing active records, but lacks details on data freshness, ordering, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 efficient sentences, first stating purpose, second providing context. No wasted words; well front-loaded.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, usage context, and auth. Lacks mention of pagination or return format, but sufficient for the simplicity level.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable per baseline (4 for 0 params). No extra semantics needed.

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 active user records with specific fields (id, date, time) and notes its use for rescheduling/cancellation. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like book_slot, cancel_booking, etc., which are action-oriented.

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 explicitly states the tool is needed for rescheduling/cancellation and requires authorization (booking), providing clear guidance on when to use it and 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?

Without annotations, the description discloses that the action is real, atomic, requires user consent via OAuth scope booking:write, and provides parameter formats. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but is transparent about the core behavior.

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 no filler; the action and key details are front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the main functional aspects: atomically moving a booking on the same day with auth. It lacks return value details and error scenarios, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter: date as YYYY-MM-DD, from as current time HH:MM, to as new time HH:MM. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, though it could be more precise about constraints (e.g., from must match existing booking).

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 the tool reschedules a user's booking to another free slot on the same day, distinguishing it from book_slot (new booking) and cancel_booking (cancellation). The verb 'moves' and resource 'booking' are specific.

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 specifies when to use (same-day rescheduling) and mentions required user consent via Telegram OAuth. It implies not to use for changing days, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to scenarios.

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