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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating that the read preserves state, meaning it does not transition or mutate RESERVED, EXPIRED, or MINTED states. This goes beyond simply repeating the annotation hints.

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 focused sentence that states the operation, the lookup keys, and the behavioral guarantee. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important information appears upfront.

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 lookup with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is that the schema has no required parameters, and the description does not explicitly state that at least one of reservationId or wallet must be supplied.

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 only 50%: the wallet parameter has a description, but reservationId relies on its name and pattern. The description does clarify that either wallet or reservationId can be the lookup key, which adds structural meaning, but it does not specify whether exactly one is required or what happens if both are omitted.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('read'), a clear resource ('one reservation'), and the lookup mechanism ('by id or wallet'). It also conveys important scope: RESERVED, EXPIRED, and MINTED states are kept visible, which distinguishes it from narrower status-only siblings.

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 clearly establishes the operation: read a reservation using either reservationId or wallet. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the direct lookup phrasing gives an agent enough context to know when to invoke this tool.

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