Find reservable clusters matching your requirements and rank them by earliest available slot for a given duration. Get proposed slots without booking.
Find reservable clusters matching requirements and rank them by earliest free slot of duration_minutes. Proposes slots only — does not book.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| itemtype | No | ||
| requirements | No | ||
| earliest_start | No | ||
| duration_minutes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for side-effect disclosure. It clearly states that the tool only proposes slots and does not book, which is a valuable behavioral trait beyond the tool name. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't mention output shape, operational limits, or edge cases.
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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical non-mutation caveat is in the second. Every clause earns its place.
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 has 5 parameters, a nested requirements object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main search-and-rank behavior and the non-booking caveat, but omits the result structure, the meaning of earliest_start/limit/itemtype, and possible failure cases. An agent can make simple calls but lacks enough detail for full confidence.
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 description adds meaning to duration_minutes by tying it to the slot-length ranking, and to requirements by referencing 'matching requirements.' But limit, itemtype, and earliest_start receive no semantic elaboration, and the schema contains 0% descriptions, so the agent must infer from parameter names. This partial compensation justifies a 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 uses a specific verb, 'Find', with a well-defined resource ('reservable clusters'), and specifies the matching and ranking behavior. It also disambiguishes from booking tools by explicitly saying 'Proposes slots only — does not book,' so an agent can tell it apart from reserve_cluster.
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 'does not book' clause is an explicit when-not that prevents the agent from using this tool to make a reservation, and the 'matching requirements' phrase implies when to use it. However, it does not name the alternative booking tool (reserve_cluster) or contrast with list_reservable_items/check_availability, so the routing guidance is not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.