List upcoming bookings for a customer by email. Queries Google Calendar directly, so results are live and reflect any bookings in the next ~20 events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Customer email used when booking. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it queries Google Calendar directly, results are live, and it reflects the next ~20 events, which sets expectations for freshness and scope. It stops short of describing auth requirements or error behavior, but for a read-only list tool these disclosures are meaningful.
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 concise sentences with the primary action and key behavioral caveat. No redundant filler.
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 one-parameter list tool, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose, data source, and result window. It doesn't describe the return payload shape, but given no output schema and the straightforward nature of 'list upcoming bookings', this is a minor gap.
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 schema already covers the single parameter 'email' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond confirming filtering 'by email'. No additional semantics about format or validation are needed given the schema is complete.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'List' with resource 'upcoming bookings' and clarifies scope 'for a customer by email'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools check_availability and initiate_booking, which focus on availability checking and booking creation.
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 gives clear context: use this tool to list a customer's upcoming bookings, with live results from Google Calendar. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and the stated purpose make usage context 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking availability, checking booking status, and initiating a booking. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_availability, check_booking_status, initiate_booking), making them predictable and readable.
With 3 tools, the set is on the lower end but appropriate for the narrow domain of booking cleaning slots. Each tool serves an essential function without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers create (initiate_booking), read (check_booking_status), and availability (check_availability), but lacks cancellation or rescheduling capabilities, which are common needs for booking services.