find_my_class

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that queries are interpreted in natural language and that the result is matching classes with availability, which is useful and accurate. It does not mention edge behaviors like empty results or ambiguity handling, but for a read/search tool the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 compact, front-loads the tool's core purpose, and uses example queries to convey behavior efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or schema repetition.

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 the tool's input style and return type ('matching classes with availability'), which is sufficient for a low-complexity search tool with two fully documented parameters. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the exact response shape or ordering could help, but the description still gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds example query phrasing that supports the query parameter but does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for fully schema-covered 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 that the tool searches for Pilates With Neelam classes using natural language, which is a specific verb and resource. It also gives concrete example queries, making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but natural-language search is distinct enough from the other get_/book_/check-in tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a user expresses a class-search need in natural language. The example queries further illustrate acceptable usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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