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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world read; the description adds real context beyond them: the required EventRegistrationReport (Read) role, the 31-day cap per period, and the underlying endpoint. It does not describe pagination behavior or what a waitlist record contains, so not 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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource is stated first and the constraints follow. The raw 'GET /api/v1/...' path is padding the agent cannot act on, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Covers auth, the period constraint, and the resource, and the limit/pagination behavior lives in the schema, but with no output schema the description says nothing about what fields a waitlist row returns. Adequate for selecting and calling the tool, thin for interpreting results.

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 adds meaning: the params divide into an event-period pair versus a registration-period pair, each capped at 31 days. That is genuine guidance on how to combine the optional filters, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Names a specific resource ('People on event waitlists') in a verb-implying list statement, which cleanly separates it from courtreserve_list_event_registrations in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Give an event period or a registration period, at most 31 days each' steers which parameter pairs to supply and constrains them, and the role requirement sets a prerequisite. Neither addresses when this tool is preferred over list_event_registrations or what happens if no period is given, so usage is implied rather than routed.

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