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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the privacy behavior (guest email, phone, and card numbers are withheld unless on a trusted device), the access requirement (Cotlet API key with app access), and the content of the response including the secondary channel source.

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?

Front-loaded with the field list, then constraints and auth. Slightly run-on with some repetition ("SiteMinder shows" appears twice, and the field list and the second paragraph overlap), but nearly 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 and only annotations covering safety, the description carries the return-value and privacy disclosure burden and does so thoroughly, including the trusted-device caveat and auth requirement. Nothing essential is missing for a read-one 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 coverage is 100% and the single booking_reference parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (get) and resource (one reservation) and enumerates the exact payload fields (stay, rooms, rate plan, channel, status history, payment summary). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling siteminder_list_reservations, which returns many.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it says it returns one reservation by booking reference, and the schema notes the reference comes from list_reservations. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-list guidance or stated prerequisites beyond the API-key note.

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