Voucher completo (HTML) de uma reserva ja confirmada — mostre/descreva ao hospede ou oriente a salvar/imprimir para o check-in. So funciona apos a reserva estar com status 'reservado' (confira com get_order_status antes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key precondition (status must be 'reservado') and the return format (HTML). It does not mention error behavior or that it is a read-only operation, but the verb 'get' and the purpose imply safety. This is decent given the context.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first clause and the usage condition in the second sentence. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.
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 get tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return format, and prerequisite condition. It lacks parameter descriptions and error behavior, but within the context of the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'token' or 'order_id' parameters. The names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, even implicitly mapping 'order_id' to the reservation. This leaves parameter semantics largely undocumented.
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 clearly states the tool returns a complete reservation voucher in HTML format for confirmed bookings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the voucher and mentioning the prerequisite status, which is specific to this tool.
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 states the tool only works after the reservation status is 'reserved' and advises checking with get_order_status beforehand. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative tool for pre-checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.