Look up the current status/time of a booking you made. Requires the booking_id and the lookup_token that book_appointment returned. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| booking_id | Yes | The booking_id returned from book_appointment | |
| lookup_token | Yes | The lookup_token returned from book_appointment for this booking |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description confirms read-only behavior (via annotations), specifies token requirements, and notes that no account is needed. It does not elaborate on error states but annotations already convey safety (readOnlyHint=true) and variability (openWorldHint=true).
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 accomplish the purpose: first states the action, second lists requirements. No redundant words, and critical information 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?
For a simple lookup tool with full schema coverage and informative annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description covers all necessary behavioral context. No output schema is needed for this use case.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds that the values come from book_appointment, which is helpful context but not essential beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Look up'), the resource ('current status/time of a booking'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_my_bookings or book_appointment by emphasizing a single booking retrieval using tokens.
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?
Explicitly lists required inputs (booking_id, lookup_token) and context ('no account needed'). It implies usage after book_appointment but does not directly state when not to use it, though the required tokens naturally limit misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: booking, cancellation, availability, business details, account management, etc. Even similar tools like get_booking and list_my_bookings have clear differences in parameters and scope.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., book_appointment, get_availability, search_businesses). No mixed styles or irregular verbs.
11 tools is well-scoped for a booking marketplace, covering customer operations, account linking, and business signup without unnecessary duplication.
The tool surface covers the core customer journey (search, view, book, cancel, reschedule) and account management. Minor gaps like business-side booking management are likely out of scope.
