schedule_visit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly explains validation checks (past dates, malformed times, out-of-range durations, double-booking refusal), giving a clear picture of what the tool will and won't do. However, it does not discuss authentication, side effects on database, or success response.

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 concise, with three short sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add essential behavioral details. No unnecessary words.

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 covers validation and double-booking but omits prerequisites (e.g., client/carer existence), success output (likely covered by output schema), and any side effects. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for each property, so schema coverage is effectively high (despite context signal claiming 0%). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond validation context, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 as 'Schedule a care visit.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from siblings like check_compliance, get_client, etc., which are unrelated to scheduling.

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 when to use the tool (to schedule a visit) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tools. It mentions validation and double-booking rejection, which helps but falls short of full guidance.

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