get_booking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates that the output will be 'full details' and that lookup is by OwnerRez ID, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, permissions needed, or clarify that include_guest may affect the response. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral 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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and identifier without redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential purpose and primary identifier. However, the include_guest parameter is unexplained, which is a notable omission since it affects the response contents. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the parameter gap prevents full contextual completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to booking_id by referring to it as the OwnerRez ID, but it entirely ignores include_guest, leaving its purpose and effect undocumented. This partial coverage of one parameter with no mention of the other is a clear gap.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('full details for a single booking'), and the method of identification ('by its OwnerRez ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from list_bookings, which likely returns a collection without full detail for each item.

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 complete information about one specific booking rather than a list. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., list_bookings for summaries), so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria but provides clear contextual direction.

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