Get reservation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, covering the full safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on lookup failure, visibility/permission scope, or the effect of the fields/format options.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, appropriately sized for a simple key-based lookup. It does not pad or bury the essential action.

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 a complete input schema, an output schema, and full annotations, the missing pieces are minor: no mention of not-found behavior or how a reservation relates to reservation items. Adequate for a simple getter but not fully rounded out.

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%: reservationId, fields, and format all carry inline enum descriptions. The description does not extend any of them, so the baseline of 3 applies for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve a reservation by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as glpi_list_reservations or glpi_get_reservation_item-like tools, so it is clear but not disambiguating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. glpi_list_reservations when the ID is unknown). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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