get_bookingRetrieve a booking the caller owns. Requires a Firebase phone-OTP token (Authorization: Bearer ); the booking is only returned when its phone number matches the verified caller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| bookingId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication (Firebase phone-OTP token) and authorization (only returns when phone matches). It does not describe error behavior or read-only nature, but the verb 'Retrieve' implies read-only.
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 purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence 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?
No output schema, no annotations, and parameter semantics are missing. The description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters; an agent would need more details on return values and parameter roles.
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% and the description provides no information about the parameters (email and bookingId). The AI agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.
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 'Retrieve a booking the caller owns,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (find_centers, get_services, etc.) by focusing on a single booking owned by the caller.
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 the caller needs to retrieve their own booking, and it specifies authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives from siblings.
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.