technician_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: day accepts ISO dates or 'today'/'tomorrow', defaults to today, technician allows partial matches, and omitting technician returns the whole workshop. This adds meaningful context beyond what annotations could provide, though it does not discuss output structure or edge cases (e.g., no bookings).

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 a single concise summary followed by a bullet-like Args list. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or filler. It is well-front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers all input options and defaults adequately. Minor omissions like timezone handling or error behavior are not critical for this simple query tool, but slightly more context about what constitutes a 'workshop booking' could improve completeness.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains both parameters in detail: 'day' format and accepted special values, and 'technician' partial matching and omission behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 starts with 'Workshop bookings for a given day,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving bookings for a specific day. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_jobs or vehicle_history, though it could be slightly more explicit by using a verb like 'Get' or 'List.'

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 implicitly communicates usage (to see bookings for a day, optionally filtered by technician), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Sibling tools are clearly different domains, so the context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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