Book an appointment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the call is idempotent, what happens on a failed/duplicate booking, confirmations sent, required permissions, or what success returns. For a mutating booking operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its data source, no repetition or filler. 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?

Covers the core flow (get times, pass start+service+contact, confirm first), which is the minimum an agent needs. But for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits failure/duplicate handling, permission or confirmation behavior, and the role of name/remarks, leaving meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 33%, so the schema documents only 'start' and 'service'. The description does add value: it names the expected inputs (start/service/email or phone) and clarifies the email-or-phone alternative. But it leaves 'name' and 'remarks' completely undocumented and does not resolve the required-params ambiguity (schema marks only start and service required, while the description implies contact info is needed).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Book ... an appointment') and explicitly ties it to a sibling tool ('one of the open times from list_open_times'), which differentiates it from that sibling. It does not differentiate from answer_customer_question, but that sibling is clearly unrelated, so the differentiation need is lower.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite: the 'start' value must come from list_open_times. It also adds a workflow instruction ('Confirm details with the customer before calling'), which is real usage guidance. It doesn't state when not to use the tool or address conflicts (e.g., what if the slot is taken), so it falls 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.