reservations.get_statusRead privacy-minimized hold, contract, signature, payment, reservation, or confirmation state for one application session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionToken | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about 'privacy-minimized' data and the types of states covered, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions or response size limits.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the action 'Read' and lists covered states. Minor wordiness could be trimmed but overall it is appropriately sized.
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 simple parameter set (1 required) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key states and session scope. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and does not address potential failure modes, making it minimally adequate.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the sessionToken parameter. However, it only vaguely mentions 'for one application session' without defining what a sessionToken is or how to obtain it, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.
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 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'hold, contract, signature, payment, reservation, or confirmation state for one application session.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing 'privacy-minimized' and 'scoped reservation progression,' though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like payments.get_status.
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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for use, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred over siblings like applications.get_status or bookings.get_confirmation.
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 is clearly scoped to a distinct action within its domain (applications, viewings, rentals, etc.). Verbs like start, update, submit, create, propose, accept are unambiguous and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent domain_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., applications.start, rentals.search, viewings.propose_availability). No mixing of styles.
21 tools cover a broad rental lifecycle (discovery, applications, quotes, viewings, payments, contracts). While slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot, each tool has a defined purpose and no redundancy.
The lifecycle from rental search to booking confirmation and contract signing is well-covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit cancellation or withdrawal tools), but the core flows are complete.