find_next_booking_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It reveals fuzzy matching behavior, the q filter's broader matching scope, and the default for from_date. However, it omits details on what happens when no match is found, whether only one result is returned, or the role of the status parameter. This leaves notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: purpose, search scope, and a key parameter detail. No filler, no repetition. Front-loaded with core function. Perfectly concise.

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 core purpose and critical behavioral nuance (fuzzy match, q filter scope, date default). However, it omits any mention of the status parameter, error handling, or whether the tool returns a single object. With an output schema present, return format is less critical, but the missing parameter documentation leaves a gap for an otherwise decent description.

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 semantics for two of three parameters: 'name/title fuzzy-matches' clarifies the name parameter's behavior, and 'from_date (YYYY-MM-DD) is inclusive and defaults to today' explains format and default. The status parameter is completely undocumented, leaving its allowed values and purpose unclear. Given low schema coverage (0%), partial compensation earns 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 clearly states 'Find the next upcoming booking whose name/title fuzzy-matches the given string.' It specifies the verb (find), the resource (next upcoming booking), and the search method (fuzzy match by name/title). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_next_booking_for_resource, which focuses on resource-based filtering.

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 explains that the search uses a ChurchSuite q filter that also matches date, reference, and sequence_id, providing context on when the tool might return unexpected results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_bookings or find_next_booking_for_resource, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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