Read one booking this credential made back from the venue.
Use it to confirm a booking landed. A `status` of `pending` means the venue has not
answered yet, not that it failed; treat anything you do not recognise as
non-terminal rather than reporting a failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reservation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: 'pending' means unanswered, not failed, and unrecognized statuses should be treated as non-terminal. That prevents a real agent error.
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 short, front-loaded sentences; the core purpose leads and the status caveat follows. No filler, every sentence 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?
With no output schema, the description wisely pre-explains the ambiguous status field, which is the main thing an agent needs. The gap is the undocumented reservation_id argument, but otherwise the definition is complete for a simple read tool.
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 carries the full burden for the single required parameter, yet it never mentions reservation_id, where it comes from, or its expected format. The agent must infer provenance from the sibling 'book' tool.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Read one booking') and scopes it to bookings made by this credential. Clearly distinct from siblings like book and get_availability, though the phrase 'back from the venue' is slightly informal rather than precise.
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 gives the use case ('Use it to confirm a booking landed') and adds interpretation guidance for status values. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the intent unambiguous.
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.