Use when an agent needs a single deterministic provider-matching result for assignment. Returns an ordered_candidates array sorted best-to-worst, where the first can_assign=true candidate is the assignee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urgency | Yes | ||
| location_id | No | ||
| service_type | Yes | ||
| area_postcode | Yes | ||
| preferred_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add important behavior: the output is an ordered_candidates array sorted best-to-worst, with the first can_assign=true candidate as assignee. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any prerequisites, or what happens when no candidate can be assigned. This is a moderate gap in transparency.
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, dense sentences. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the output structure and selection rule. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is rather sparse. It explains the core output behavior and when to use the tool, but it does not clarify how parameters like service_type, area_postcode, or urgency affect matching, nor does it mention edge cases or relationships to sibling tools like check_availability or find_services. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.
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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters, their roles, or how they influence the matching logic. Since the schema coverage is extremely low, the description was expected to compensate but fails completely, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics solely from names and enums.
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's purpose: it provides a single deterministic provider-matching result for assignment. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_services by emphasizing the deterministic, assignment-oriented nature. The verb 'match' is explicit in the name and the description elaborates on the resource (providers) and the specific output format.
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 a clear usage condition: 'Use when an agent needs a single deterministic provider-matching result for assignment.' This implies when the goal is assignment rather than merely listing or checking availability. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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.
Some tools overlap in purpose, such as check_availability vs get_customer_availability and the various verification entry points. Descriptions clarify the context of each, but an agent could still misselect without careful reading.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, e.g., check_availability, create_booking_request, get_booking_status. This makes the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
With 20 tools, the server is on the heavier side but the scope is broad, covering booking, customer verification, payments, and provider matching. The count feels slightly high but each tool serves a distinct step in the workflow.
The tool surface covers the full booking lifecycle from availability and quote to payment and final creation. Notable gaps include lack of update or cancel booking operations, but the core flow is well covered.