search_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that classes are gated behind WELLPASS_EMAIL/WELLPASS_PASSWORD in .env, supplies default date window behavior, caps limit at 1-100, and describes the return payload. It does not state what happens if no target is supplied, nor any rate-limit or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by three labelled blocks (target selection, Args, Returns). Every line carries information an agent needs and there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a nine-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies auth requirements, targeting constraints, parameter semantics, defaults, and an explicit Returns summary. The one omission is behavior when none of the three targets is provided, given that the schema declares zero required parameters.

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 0% and all nine parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate entirely — and it does, giving each an explicit meaning, plus defaults (date_from=now, date_to=now+7d, limit=30) and match semantics (teacher is a case-insensitive substring, category matches activity, available_only requires a free spot). This is the strongest section.

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 and resource ('Search bookable Wellpass classes for a studio (or online), with filters'), and the parenthetical scope '(or online)' signals the dual targeting mode. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_classes_near, which an agent would likely weigh against it, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Pick ONE target' with three enumerated mutually exclusive modes is clear when-to-use guidance, and it routes the agent to search_studios for the studio_slug and club_uuid values. It never states when to prefer this tool over search_classes_near, leaving the main sibling ambiguity unresolved.

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