Reserva-Out

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is non-mutating ('describe') and scoped to reservation requests, which is useful context. However, it does not mention authentication, return format, or any limitations, though these are less critical for a parameterless informational tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Describe what the MeuPortal connector can do') and adds a clear scope ('for reservation requests'). Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is trivial (0 parameters, output schema exists), and the description fully covers its purpose. There are no complex behaviors or parameters to explain, so the description is complete for its context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter details, and the input schema confirms no arguments are required.

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 uses a specific verb 'describe' and clearly identifies the resource (MeuPortal connector) and its scope (reservation requests). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_date_availability, which perform specific operations, making the tool's purpose obvious.

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 that the tool is for gaining an overview of the connector's capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools or provide any exclusions. The 'for reservation requests' phrase hints at context but lacks actionable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds important behavioral context such as 'Availability is day-only: hours and times are intentionally ignored' and the required ISO date format. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Check' implies a non-mutating operation. Overall, it provides relevant details beyond the basic schema.

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 brief (three sentences) yet dense with essential information: purpose, when to use, date format, and day-only granularity. Every sentence contributes unique value, and key details are front-loaded.

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 check tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, required prerequisite (use before reservation), input format, and a behavioral caveat. The presence of an output schema presumably handles return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It specifies the exact format ('ISO YYYY-MM-DD') and clarifies that time components are ignored, giving meaning that the schema lacks.

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 function: checking calendar day availability in MeuPortal. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('calendar day'), and is distinct from siblings about_meuportal, get_reservation_status, and request_reservation.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Always use this before requesting a reservation', providing a direct when-to-use directive and implicitly contrasting with the request_reservation sibling. It also clarifies that only day-level availability is checked, avoiding confusion about time-specific queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'Return the current status.' It does not disclose what 'current' means, whether the call is read-only (though 'Return' suggests so), potential failure modes, or what status values exist. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the obvious.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gets to the point immediately and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context: what statuses could be returned, how to obtain the reservation_id, and any relationship to request_reservation. The presence of an output schema (which we don't see) may help, but the description itself is under-specified.

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 only reservation_id with 0% description coverage. The description repeats 'by reservation id' without adding format, example, or provenance (e.g., must be a valid ID from request_reservation). It fails to compensate for the missing schema parameter description.

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 a specific action (Return) and resource (MeuPortal reservation status) with an explicit key (reservation id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools about_meuportal, check_date_availability, and request_reservation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that the reservation must already exist via request_reservation, or that this is for post-booking checks. Usage context is only implied by the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the result is 'pending_payment, not confirmed' and that links are 'placeholder payment' links, which is important context. It does not mention authorization or failure behavior, but the disclosed pending state and placeholder nature add significant 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and what to do with the results. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return fields. It covers the core workflow: create a request, check availability beforehand, expect pending status, and pass payment links to the user. It could mention side effects or failure modes, but for this tool's complexity it is largely complete.

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 zero description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter. It only indirectly implies reservation_date is central by saying to check the day first, while customer_name is completely unaddressed. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a MeuPortal reservation request') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it returns placeholder payment links, whereas siblings check availability or get status. This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from related tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use only after checking the day with `check_date_availability`', naming a prerequisite sibling tool and defining when this tool should be invoked. It also gives follow-up instructions on what to do with the returned payment links, providing clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.