get_bookingDEPRECATED — this tool is now called get_order_details and behaves identically. The old name keeps working so that agents connected before the rename are not broken. Prefer get_order_details, which is accurate for certificates as well as appointments.
The Teams joining link and meeting details for a paid order. Available only once payment has settled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark it as read-only. The description adds value by disclosing the deprecation and identity as an alias of get_order_details, as well as the availability condition (after payment settles). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint.
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 compact and front-loaded with the deprecation warning. It provides the necessary information in two sentences without unnecessary fluff.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function, the deprecation, and the key precondition. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly (or avoid it in favor of the preferred alias).
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 only parameter order_id is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description refers to 'a paid order', implying the order_id must correspond to a paid order, but does not provide format, type, or additional meaning beyond the property name.
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 that the tool returns the Teams joining link and meeting details for a paid order, and explicitly identifies it as a deprecated alias of get_order_details. This distinguishes it from siblings and specifies its function with a specific verb+resource.
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 explicitly says 'DEPRECATED' and 'Prefer get_order_details', providing clear guidance to use the sibling tool instead. It also notes the precondition that payment must have settled, indicating when this tool is applicable.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the session booking lifecycle and certificate operations. However, the four deprecated aliases (cancel_booking, get_booking, reschedule_booking, update_booking) perform exactly the same actions as their new counterparts, creating potential confusion despite the deprecation notices.
Newer tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_order, cancel_order, get_order_details, reschedule_session), but the use of 'order' vs 'session' is inconsistent, and 'order_certificate' uses 'order' as a verb. The deprecated aliases mixing 'booking' with 'order' further muddies the convention, making the overall naming only moderately predictable.
At 16 tools the set feels slightly heavy, but four are deprecated aliases that are exact duplicates of active tools. The effective 12 unique tools are well-scoped for a shop handling both session bookings and certificate purchases, so the count is reasonable.
The session booking lifecycle is fully covered (availability, create, cancel, reschedule, update, status, details) and certificate operations (order, transfer, renounce) are present. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to list all orders or verify a certificate, but these are not critical to the core workflows.