Create a bookable service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: the two modes, the free nature, and the fact that embedding is a separate step. However, it does not describe the return value, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects—leaving notable gaps for an agent assessing the tool's 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise bulleted list of two modes, and a short note about embedding. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's complexity (21 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the core mode decision and directs the user to setup_booking_widget for embedding. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., created service ID) or any post-creation workflow. While the schema fills many gaps, the absence of return-value info leaves an important completeness gap for an agent chaining calls.

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 schema already covers 76% of parameters with descriptive text, including mode-specific notes like '[time_slot] Slot length in minutes. Default 60.' The tool description reinforces the mode–parameter association (duration_minutes for time_slot, min_nights/max_nights for date_range) but adds little beyond what the schema property descriptions already provide. The less-documented parameters (e.g., sort_order, buffer_*) are not elaborated in the description.

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 the primary action: 'Create a service that customers can book.' It also differentiates the tool's two modes (time_slot vs date_range) and points to setup_booking_widget for embedding, distinguishing it from related flows. This is specific, action-oriented, and unambiguous.

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 usage context by explaining the two booking modes and their typical use cases (meetings/appointments vs apartment/rental stays). It also states that embedding is handled by setup_booking_widget, implicitly guiding the agent on what not to expect here. However, it does not explicitly name alternative create tools or include 'when not to use' statements, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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