io_get_reservation

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating read, and the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no error behavior for a missing ID, no permission requirements, no notes on the payload. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description still contributes no extra 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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is terse but not padded; the only shortfall is that the terseness borders on under-specification rather than being maximally informative.

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 single-record read with readOnlyHint=true, a 100%-covered schema, and no output schema to explain, the one-line description is nearly sufficient. It omits not-found/error semantics, which is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.

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%, so both the 'id' and the 'view' enum (compact vs full, including what compact strips) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single iOffice reservation by ID'), which clearly separates it from the list/update/delete reservation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the singular 'single ... by ID' framing makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the lookup tool when it has a reservation ID, versus io_list_reservations for browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note about what happens with an unknown/absent ID, and no prerequisites called out.

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