find_cheapest_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states results are sorted by price (lowest first), which is useful, but omits details like what happens when no slots are found, whether location is required, or any rate limits. The minimal information leaves too many gaps for reliable agent invocation.

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 key action and a critical behavioral trait (sorting) are front-loaded. Efficient and to the point.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what results contain (e.g., times, courts, prices) or provide any usage context. A more complete description would outline return format, edge cases, or required prerequisites.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how optional parameters like time_start, time_end, or min_duration_minutes interact with result sorting.

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 finds cheapest padel court slots and specifies sorting by price. The name aligns with purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_prices or check_availability, though the focus on cheapest and automatic sorting provides a distinct aim.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_prices, check_availability, or find_nearby_courts. The description only implies usage for finding cheapest slots, but lacks exclusion criteria or context for decision-making.

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