find_centersList active car-wash centers within radiusKm of a latitude/longitude, nearest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | ||
| radiusKm | Yes | Search radius in kilometres (max 50) | |
| longitude | Yes | ||
| serviceType | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'active' and 'nearest first'. It does not disclose behavior such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if no results. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious.
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, extremely concise, front-loads the key action and criteria. No wasted words, every part 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?
Tool has 4 params, optional serviceType, and no output schema or annotations. The description lacks detail on return structure, error conditions, or behavior when serviceType is omitted. Incomplete for a contextual understanding.
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 low (25%, only radiusKm has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, missing explanation of required lat/lng format, optional serviceType meaning, or how radiusKm is used.
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 'active car-wash centers', with explicit criteria (within radiusKm of lat/lng, nearest first). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_booking or get_services by specifying a geographic search.
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 for finding nearby car-wash centers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_wash or search_available_slots. No exclusions or context guidance is provided.
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 has a clear, distinct purpose: listing centers, retrieving booking, listing services, recommending wash, and searching slots. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., find_centers, get_booking, search_available_slots). No deviations.
5 tools is reasonable for a focused car-wash booking domain, though the set is slightly underpopulated for a full CRUD workflow.
Missing essential tools for creating, updating, or canceling bookings. The server allows discovering services and slots but not completing a reservation, which is a significant gap.