search_available_slotsFind open car-wash time slots near a location on a given day. Returns centers with their available slots and busyness level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Target day in YYYY-MM-DD (Europe/Paris) | |
| location | Yes | City, postal code, center name or slug, e.g. "Paris" or "75017" | |
| serviceType | No | Filter: fixed (on-site), mobile, or home service |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the output (centers with slots and busyness) but omits safety, side effects, or idempotency. Minimal but not misleading.
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 short sentences (16 words) that front-load the purpose. No redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 output schema, the description mentions return content (centers, slots, busyness) but lacks detail on structure, pagination, or edge cases. Adequate for a simple search but incomplete.
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 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters (date, location, serviceType). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 finds open car-wash time slots near a location on a given day, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like find_centers (centers only) and get_booking (existing booking).
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 versus alternatives. The description lacks conditions, exclusions, or references to siblings, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.