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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add meaning beyond that. It does by explaining lock semantics — a reserved path and everything under it cannot be changed by another experiment or a configuration edit until the owning experiment ends. It stops short of describing the fields each lock entry returns, which would have completed the picture.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the definition, then the consequence, then the usage routing and prerequisite. Nothing is redundant with the structured fields.

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 does need to convey what comes back, and it identifies the returned concept (reserved paths) and who owns them. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the shape of a lock entry is left unspecified.

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%, including descriptions for projectId, environment, and configurationId, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's 'optionally for one configuration' merely corroborates the configurationId semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List configuration paths reserved by scheduled or active experiments, optionally for one configuration.' That is unmistakably distinct from siblings such as list_configurations or preview_configuration_change, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before create_experiment and when explaining a refused configuration change, plus a prerequisite step (load_skill("understand-experiments")). This is exactly the routing information an agent needs, not just implied context.

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