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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the default scope, the soonest-first ordering, what history surfaces (final status), and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to the app). It doesn't discuss pagination or result limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope in the first sentence, then default behavior, then the cancel hand-off. Every sentence adds a distinct fact; no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, ordering, default scope, history semantics, and auth prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and to chain its results into cancellation.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by explaining the consequence of each scope value ('upcoming by default' vs 'history to see past classes with their final status') and by pointing at reservation_id's role in the returned items. That meaning goes beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (customer reservations) plus the returned fields (class, instructor, payment used, status) and the two scopes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like mariana-tek_get_customer or mariana-tek_list_classes without opening any schema.

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?

States the default behavior (upcoming, soonest first) and how to switch to history for past classes with final status, plus a clear downstream action (use reservation_id to cancel). It gives strong context but stops short of explicitly saying when NOT to use it versus alternative routes to reservation data.

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