volkern_check_disponibilidad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks availability, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or if it has rate limits. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient 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 the tool's moderate complexity (availability checking), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on return values (e.g., format of time slots) and behavioral constraints, which would be needed for full completeness.

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 both parameters ('fecha' as date in YYYY-MM-DD format, 'duracion' as duration in minutes with default 60). The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'available time slots' represent or how duration affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Check available time slots') and resource ('for a specific date'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'volkern_create_cita' (booking) and 'volkern_list_citas' (listing appointments). It uses a precise verb ('Check') rather than a generic term.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'Always call this before booking.' This directly addresses the relationship with booking tools (e.g., 'volkern_create_cita'), making it clear this is a prerequisite step.

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