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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: cursor-based pagination ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page'), the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'), and the null-room behavior for unassigned rooms.

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 field list is stated twice ('status, source, guest, occupants, dates, room, total and outstanding amount' then 'status, guest name, reference, source, occupants, dates, room, total and outstanding amount'), which is redundant filler. Pagination and auth notes are front-loaded adequately, but the duplication costs it.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned columns, explains pagination, filter dimensions and the API-key requirement. What is missing is a note on how this tool relates to the single-reservation retrieval sibling despite the overlapping reservation_id parameter.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters, and the description's restatement of the status and date_type options adds little. It does add one useful piece of semantics tying output to input ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor'), but the 'no room' note concerns returned rows rather than parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list/search reservations) and enumerates the row fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not name the sibling get_reservation, even though the reservation_id parameter overlaps with it, so the boundary with siblings is left implicit.

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 implied through the filter semantics it explains (date_type can be check-in, check-out or booked on; status can be confirmed/checked in/checked out/cancelled), which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_reservation, update_reservation_status or create_reservation instead.

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