get_my_service_bookingOpen an appointment that belongs to the connected customer. This is read-only and provides the protected management card for exact reschedule or cancellation review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | No | view | |
| booking_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces the read-only behavior. It adds context beyond annotations by scoping the appointment to the connected customer and describing the protected management card output. This is useful behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.
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 filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the key behavioral distinction (read-only management card for reschedule/cancellation review). Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-appointment retrieval tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It conveys ownership scope, read-only behavior, and the purpose of the returned management card. It does not explicitly guide the agent to list_my_service_bookings to obtain a booking_id, but the schema and tool name make the required input reasonably clear.
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 does not explain booking_id or intent directly, but it does add some meaning: the appointment must belong to the connected customer, and the management-card framing maps to the view/reschedule/cancel intent values. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is only partial compensation; the description could more explicitly connect the intent parameter to its effect.
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 names a specific action and resource: opening a single appointment that belongs to the connected customer. It is clearly distinct from listing appointments, and the mention of a management card for reschedule/cancellation review separates it from the actual reschedule and cancel tools. However, 'open' is slightly less precise than a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.
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 context: use this tool to open a customer's own appointment and get a management card for reviewing reschedule or cancellation options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only framing and review-focused purpose make the intended use clear.
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.
Most tools map to distinct lifecycle stages: request intake, option selection, booking creation, and booking management. The main potential confusion is between get_service_options and select_service_option, and between prepare_service_booking_change versus the actual cancel/reschedule tools, but per-tool guidance makes the boundaries clear enough for an agent.
All tool names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as start_service_request, update_service_request, get_service_options, and reschedule_service_booking. Minor variations like get_my_service_bookings and prepare_service_booking_change are still natural and predictable.
Twelve tools is well-scoped for a booking and appointment-management domain. Each tool serves a necessary step in the flow: starting a request, updating intake, selecting options, creating bookings, listing/getting bookings, and handling changes.
The lifecycle is largely complete: request creation and updates, option selection, booking creation, read/list, reschedule, and cancelation. Obvious gaps are minor, such as no explicit tool to abandon a service request or retrieve a single service request alone, but the core user journey has no dead ends.