collect_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool does not claim appointment confirmation. This is valuable, but it omits other potential behaviors like data persistence, return format, or side effects. Still, it adds meaningful beyond-schema context.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a key nuance. No wasted words, though it omits potentially useful details.

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 tool is simple with four self-explanatory parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description is enough to understand the basic operation but lacks details about what happens after collection, any constraints on input values, or how the returned data is structured. Sibling tools indicate there are other pathways, but the description does not connect to them.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, callback_number, service, preferred_time). The phrase 'scheduling details' vaguely maps to these fields but adds no specific semantics beyond what the parameter names already convey. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Collect scheduling details' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing constraint ('without claiming that an appointment is confirmed'), which helps differentiate it from other tools like escalate_to_human or search_service_knowledge.

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 implies this tool is used when gathering scheduling information and explicitly notes it does not confirm appointments, providing some usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives like search_service_knowledge or escalate_to_human, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is only implicit.

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