get_reservation_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the scope ('specific reservation') and the data categories included (payments, charges, adjustments), which goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word contributes meaningful information. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides enough context about its purpose and content for basic selection. However, it does not distinguish from sibling financial tools explicitly, and the absence of an output schema means the exact response structure is undisclosed, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with the reservationId parameter already described as 'The reservation ID'. The description reinforces that it is for a specific reservation but does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a detailed financial breakdown for a specific reservation, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('reservation'). It lists the components (payments, charges, adjustments), and the word 'specific' differentiates it from broader financial summary tools like get_revenue_summary.

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 implies usage when you need financial details for one reservation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_financials or get_owner_statements. No when/when-not or alternative references are provided.

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