banquets__get_reserve_statuses_by_id

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: MCP-server throttling (no more than 20 requests per 60 seconds), explicitly distinguishing it from the iikoCloud limit, and instructing the agent to cache results in the dialog.

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 consists of three short, purposeful sentences: purpose first, then ID sourcing, then throttling/caching advice. There is no filler, and the most important operational constraint is both explicit and actionable.

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 ID lookup, the description covers the operation, how to obtain the organization ID, and the server rate limit. It does not describe the exact response shape or where reserveIds come from, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining structural requirements.

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?

With 0% top-level schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation, and it partially does: it maps organizationId to organizations__get_organizations and implies that reserveIds are the identifiers being queried. However, it does not explain sourceKeys or the nested request structure fully, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 states the operation clearly: it returns reserve statuses for the supplied identifiers ('Статусы резервов по их идентификаторам'). It is specific about the resource and lookup key, but it does not name or contrast sibling banquets lookup tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling banquets tools such as get_reserve_available_organizations or get_reserve_terminal_groups. It only gives a prerequisite hint about obtaining organizationId from organizations__get_organizations, which is not selection guidance.

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