Найти клинику сети БиоВет (Москва и Реутов, 20 клиник, все 24/7): по названию района/метро/улицы или по координатам. Возвращает адреса, рейтинги Яндекс.Карт и clinic_id для записи.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Широта (вместо query) | |
| lon | No | Долгота (вместо query) | |
| query | No | Район, метро или улица по-русски, например «Марьино» или «Бабушкинская» |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It covers network scope (Moscow and Reutov, 20 clinics), operational status (all 24/7), and return fields (addresses, Yandex.Maps ratings, clinic_id). Minor gaps like coordinate/query precedence are not disclosed.
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?
One compact, front-loaded sentence conveys scope, search methods, and return values without unnecessary detail. Every clause adds useful 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?
The description is sufficient for a simple lookup tool: it states what the tool finds, how to search, and what it returns. It does not explicitly instruct the agent to provide either query or coordinates, but the schema's 'instead of query' notes partially cover this.
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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions and examples. The tool description adds little beyond grouping query by name versus coordinates, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: find a BioVet clinic by district/metro/street or coordinates. It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on location lookup and mentioning the clinic_id needed for 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 gives clear search modes: by district/metro/street or by coordinates. It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.