get_reservation

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

Critically, the description discloses that 'output may contain environment credentials' and applies a conditional call restriction ('only call this when the user asks about a specific reservation') to guard against unnecessary credential exposure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it meets it exceptionally well by flagging the sensitive-credential behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loads the core purpose, enumerates the returned content categories, then delivers the critical security caveat and usage condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It specifies what details are returned (service links, access details, lifecycle dates, extension count), flags credential exposure risk, and gives the call condition. The output schema covers return structure, so no further return documentation is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the source of the id ('from list_reservations') — a key semantic detail beyond merely naming the field. While it doesn't describe the id's format/type beyond schema, the sourcing context is the most valuable semantic addition. Slightly below 5 because it doesn't note what makes a valid id beyond 'id from list_reservations'.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'get full details for one reservation by its id'. Explicitly notes the source of the id (from list_reservations), distinguishes from siblings like list_reservations (plural/bulk vs single). The scope is precise and 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?

Explicitly states when NOT to call: 'only call this when the user asks about a specific reservation'. The 'from list_reservations' instruction provides a clear prerequisite/source for the id. This gives strong usage guidance relative to the sibling list_reservations tool.

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