Свободное время врачей клиники БиоВет: кто принимает и в какие часы можно записаться. clinic_id — из find_clinic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD; без даты — ближайшие дни | |
| clinic_id | Yes | ID клиники из find_clinic | |
| specialty | No | Фильтр по специальности: «терапевт», «кардиолог», «узи»… |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only lookup by returning free time, doctors, and hours, but it does not explicitly say it does not book an appointment or describe empty-result behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.
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 one concise, information-dense sentence followed by a short prerequisite hint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant material.
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 lookup tool with three well-documented parameters, the description explains what the agent will get (doctors and available hours) and where to obtain clinic_id. Since no output schema exists, a little more detail about result shape and empty-behavior would help, but the description covers the essential context.
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 100%, so the schema already documents date, clinic_id, and specialty. The description only repeats that clinic_id comes from find_clinic, which adds no real semantic value beyond the schema. Therefore a baseline score of 3 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 identifies an availability-lookup tool: 'Свободное время врачей клиники БиоВет: кто принимает и в какие часы можно записаться.' It names the resource (doctor availability at BioVet) and the output content (doctors and hours), which separates it from booking or knowledge-base siblings. It is slightly indirect because it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't name the paired booking tool.
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 only explicit guidance is the prerequisite hint 'clinic_id — из find_clinic', which tells the agent where to get the required parameter. The intended use case is implied but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer check_slots over book_visit or ask_vet_kb, nor any 'do not use' conditions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct task: clinic lookup, slot availability, booking, prices, general health Q&A, food safety, and urgency triage. The health-related tools (ask_vet_kb, food_check, triage) have clearly separated purposes in their descriptions, so agent misselection is unlikely.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (find_clinic, check_slots, book_visit, get_prices). food_check reverses the order and ask_vet_kb uses an abbreviation, creating minor inconsistencies, but the overall pattern is still readable and predictable.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool serves a necessary function in the pet-care workflow. The set is neither bloated nor too thin for a veterinary clinic assistant.
The main workflows are complete: clinic discovery, appointment booking, price lookup, and health/triage information are all covered. Missing appointment cancellation or modification is a minor gap but does not break the core service.