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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it flags that the response 'Contains personal guest data' (a handling/privacy caveat) and names the exact Operto endpoint, which helps an agent reason about scope and sensitivity.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the data-sensitivity note, then the endpoint. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return contents — it does so explicitly (status, dates, guest contact data, access and checkout codes). Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two parameters and the readOnly annotation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, and the schema itself explains the keyid='partner' switch and the reservation_id dual meaning. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no syntax, format, or fallback detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get one reservation by id') and enumerates what comes back: status, dates, guest contact data, access and checkout codes. The 'one' vs. the sibling operto_list_reservations makes the single-record scope unambiguous, and the underlying endpoint is given.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the caller must already hold a reservation id, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of operto_list_reservations as the alternative when an id is not known.

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