quick_book_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'See availability' and 'favorite venues', but does not clarify if it's read-only (assumed), what happens if there are no favorites, or any side effects. The description lacks explicit behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, no fluff, and front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could structure the info better (e.g., separate purpose from use case).

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return result looks like (e.g., list of venues with availability), error conditions, or edge cases like empty favorite list. For a tool with siblings offering more detail, this description lacks sufficient completeness for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'specific time' without elaborating on the parameters. The schema already documents date and time_preference with patterns, so the description adds no extra value for parameters.

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 checks availability at all favorite venues for a specific time, using a specific verb 'See availability' and resource 'all your favorite venues'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_availability' (likely single venue) and 'list_favorite_venues' (only lists, not checks).

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 provides a use case ('Can I play tonight?') implying when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like 'check_availability' or 'find_available_games'. No usage exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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