query_reservation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation (look up), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or idempotent. Listing possible states adds some transparency but could be more detailed about side effects or error conditions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a list of example states. Every part earns its place; no unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and return hints. However, it could better contextualize usage among the seven sibling tools (e.g., distinguishing from get_budget or check_budget). Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Only one parameter (hold_id) exists, and the schema provides a basic description. The description adds context by stating the tool queries by ID and linking to check_budget, which gives meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds extra value.

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 looks up the state of a single reservation/hold by its ID, listing possible states (held, settled, released, refunded). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like refund or release which modify state.

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 to check the current state of a reservation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among the listed siblings. It lacks guidance on comparing to similar lookup functions.

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