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

Discloses required scope and notes nested fields as JSON, but no annotations exist to compensate. Lacks details on side effects, duplicate handling, or rate limits.

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?

Efficient two sentences with clear purpose and scope. Could be improved by listing key parameters, but remains concise and front-loaded.

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 19 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. An agent would lack essential context to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds almost no parameter meaning. Only mentions nested fields broadly; 19 parameters are left unexplained.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new booking page' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools (delete, get, list, update) by focusing on creation.

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?

Provides scope requirement but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update vs create). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: soft-delete (row retained, is_active=false), public hiding, and re-activability. It also notes the required OAuth scope, covering safety and side effects.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action, followed by key behavioral details and a scope requirement. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, how it works (soft-delete), how to reverse (update), and required permissions. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, but the description references 'by its event type ID', connecting the single parameter to the resource. It adds essential meaning beyond the schema (which only defines type and constraints), though more detail on the parameter format is absent.

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 action 'Deactivate (pause) a booking page' and identifies the resource via event type ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like booking_pages_create and booking_pages_update by explaining the soft-delete behavior and re-activation path.

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 specifies the required scope ('booking_pages:write') and mentions that re-activation is done via the update tool. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (to pause a page), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the basic operation but omits any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID does not exist).

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameter.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential function. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool, though it lacks details on return value or error behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'eventTypeId' parameter identifies the booking page. This provides context beyond the schema's type definition, though it does not elaborate on what an event type ID represents.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single booking page', and identifies the key parameter 'event type ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like booking_pages_list (multiple pages) and booking_pages_create/update/delete.

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 implies usage (when you need a single page by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, alternatives, or prerequisites. The existence of booking_pages_list suggests a sibling for listing all pages, but no direct comparison is made.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It accurately portrays a read-only list operation with no mention of side effects. However, it omits potential details like pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list, it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

A single sentence with 12 words, no unnecessary information. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete for a straightforward list tool. It covers the operation and clarifies the resource.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying that booking pages are event types with public links, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'booking pages,' adding context that these are event types with public links for the authenticated user. It distinguishes from siblings like booking_pages_get (single page) and booking_pages_create.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like booking_pages_get for a single page or booking_pages_create. The description only states what it does without exclusions or context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses the write scope, partial update behavior, and nested field replacement ('Nested fields... accept JSON and replace the previous value'). However, it lacks details on success responses, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a mutation tool with 21 parameters.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, scope, and update semantics. No redundant information, and the most critical fact (update by ID) is front-loaded.

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 21 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or constraints like field optionality beyond the schema. The nested field explanation is helpful but does not compensate for the lack of broader context.

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 description coverage is 0% for 21 parameters. The description only adds meaning for nested fields ('availability, --custom-questions, --duration-options') noting they replace previous values. This is insufficient for the vast majority of parameters, leaving agents to infer their purpose from names alone.

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 'Update an existing booking page by its event type ID.' This specifies a distinct verb and resource, differentiating it from siblings like 'booking_pages_create' (create) and 'booking_pages_get' (read).

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 indicates when to use (update by event type ID) and notes partial updates: 'Only fields you pass are updated.' It also mentions required scope. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or reference alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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

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 only states it 'gets' a booking, implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data shape. Minimal disclosure.

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 sentence of six words with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about the return format or what fields the booking includes, which would help an agent understand the response.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'uid' parameter. The description clarifies that uid is the booking's identifier, which adds some meaning, but does not specify format, type constraints, or any additional details beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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 'Get a single booking by its UID' clearly states the action (get), the resource (booking), and the unique identifier (UID). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'bookings_list' which likely retrieves multiple bookings.

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 implies the tool should be used to fetch a specific booking by UID, but does not explicitly contrast with 'bookings_list' or provide guidance on when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose important traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication, or ordering. Only mentions filter support.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and concise, no extraneous text.

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?

Missing important context for a list tool: no mention of pagination, default limits, response structure, or ordering. With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more operational detail.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). Description names three filter categories (status, event type, time range) that map to four parameters, but fails to mention the 'limit' parameter or provide format details for time strings.

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?

Clearly states it lists the authenticated user's bookings, with filter support. Distinguishes from sibling tools like bookings_get and event_types_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?

Implies usage for listing bookings, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like bookings_get or booking_pages_list.

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

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

The description explains the `selected` field's significance and its effect on booking-page availability, providing behavioral context beyond the empty schema. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or authentication requirements, but these are implied by the operation type.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the primary action and adding valuable detail in the second sentence.

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 the core functionality and the important `selected` field. It could mention whether pagination applies or list other common fields, but for a simple list tool with no output schema, it is sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns and how the `selected` field works, which is necessary since there is no output schema.

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 'List connected calendars for the authenticated user' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds context about the `selected` field, distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify calendar selection.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like calendars_select or calendars_unselect. The description implies it is for viewing, but does not state alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation (marking a calendar), requires a specific scope, and has an account-wide effect that persists across booking pages. It does not mention whether the action is reversible or the exact timing of effect, but the included details are valuable beyond the schema.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides scope and behavioral context. No redundant or verbose 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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior, required scope, and account-wide effect. It is missing information on return values or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward selection tool. Sibling 'calendars_list' can supply the calendar_key.

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 has 1 parameter (calendar_key) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly define the parameter, only implying it refers to a calendar within an integration. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not add meaningful guidance on its format, source, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: 'Mark a calendar as counting against booking-page availability', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also provides the colloquial name 'Check for conflicts on' and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'calendars_unselect' which likely reverses this action.

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 explicitly mentions the required OAuth scope ('booking_pages:write'), providing a clear usage prerequisite. It also notes the account-wide effect, which helps set context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., calendars_unselect) or provide scenarios where it should not be used.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies state (stops counting), requires a specific scope, and is the counterpart to a select operation. This gives the agent a reasonable understanding of the behavior, though it could mention that it is not a destructive irreversible action.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences. Every sentence adds essential information: the action, the required scope, and the relationship to the sibling tool. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, preconditions, and relationship. It could be slightly more complete by briefly noting the effect on existing bookings or the expected output, but overall it is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameter 'calendar_key', but it does not. The parameter is only defined as a required string with minLength 1. The description does not clarify what value to provide (e.g., calendar ID or name), leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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 tool's purpose: 'Stop counting a calendar against booking-page availability.' It uses a specific verb ('stop counting') and identifies the resource ('calendar'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'calendars_select' by naming it as the inverse.

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 explicitly mentions the required scope ('booking_pages:write') and notes that this tool is the inverse of 'carly calendars select', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the inverse.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses two modes of operation (own vs public) but does not mention authorization requirements, side effects, or rate limits. Adequate but with gaps.

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 main action, no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, description covers both modes. Missing output format details, but largely complete for its complexity.

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 has zero description coverage, but description explains the sole parameter --username and its effect on results. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List event types' and distinguishes behavior based on the username parameter, specifying ownership vs public profile. It is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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?

Provides explicit context for two usage scenarios (with and without --username), but does not mention when not to use or alternatives. Clear context but no exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists the operation as read-only (listing) but does not mention what happens if both identification methods are provided, timezone handling, pagination, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include missing details without becoming verbose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return value format, parameter formats, and handling of edge cases (e.g., no available slots). Does not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It clarifies the mutual exclusivity between eventTypeId and (username+eventTypeSlug), which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the format of startTime/endTime, the role of duration, or other constraints. Partial addition of meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available booking slots') and clearly states the scope ('in a time range'). It also specifies the identification parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bookings_list or event_types_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 mentions the required identification parameters but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use slot search vs. booking list). No when-not or comparison to siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not explicitly mention that it does not modify data or detail any return format. Adequate for a simple 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and object. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. Could optionally mention the return value (e.g., user info), but not required for correctness.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool shows the user associated with the API key. The verb 'show' and resource 'user' are specific, and among siblings (bookings, calendars, etc.), it uniquely stands out as an identity tool.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and no sibling tool performs a similar function. The context implicitly suggests it is for verifying the API key owner.

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