get_reservation_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It hints at behavioral scope with 'minimum useful' suggesting limited data retrieval, but fails to explain what 'brief' entails, error handling for invalid reservation IDs, or how the detailLevel parameter interacts with the 'minimum useful' concept.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundancy. However, extreme brevity becomes a liability given the lack of schema documentation and annotations; the description prioritizes brevity over necessary instructional content.

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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe returns), the description should explain parameter semantics, especially the detailLevel enum values and reservationId format, which are completely undocumented elsewhere.

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% with no descriptions on reservationId or detailLevel. The description completely fails to compensate for this gap—it does not mention that reservationId accepts string or number, nor explain what 'compact' vs 'full' means in the detailLevel enum. Critical parameter semantics are missing.

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 returns 'minimum useful reservation context' with specific agent/operator audience, establishing verb (Return), resource (reservation context), and scope (minimum useful). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_reservations' or explain why to use this over 'get_conversation_context'.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings include search_reservations and get_conversation_context, the description should specify this retrieves a specific reservation by ID rather than searching, and provides brief context rather than conversation history.

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