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

Adds real context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: the required ReservationReport (Read) role, the 31-day maximum window, and that cancelled_only overrides include_cancelled. It stops short of describing pagination or the shape of the reply beyond naming the included fields.

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 resource and scope, followed by the window cap and the auth prerequisite. Nothing is wasted and no clause repeats the name or title.

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 name the returned fields (member, court, time) and covers the auth and window constraints, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around the exact reply structure and whether rows are grouped by court or reservation.

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 start/end formats, the 500-row limit and the cancelled_only precedence are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'optionally including or only cancelled ones' only restates that, adding no new syntax or edge-case detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'Who is booked in a time window,' and enumerates exactly what is returned (member reservations and event registrations with member, court and time). This differentiates it from siblings like courtreserve_list_reservations or courtreserve_list_event_registrations, which cover only one source.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('for example today'), a hard constraint (window at most 31 days), and a prerequisite (ReservationReport role, Read). It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over courtreserve_get_member_reservations or the separate list_* tools, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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