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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses two things annotations cannot: the required scope read:reservation and the conditional nullability of guest contact fields without read:customer. The "give at least one filter" validation rule is also behavior a caller must know before invoking.

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 sentences in descending order of importance: purpose, filter rule, then scope/permission caveats. Dense and front-loaded, though the mid-sentence filter requirement could be split for scannability.

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 9-param, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the definition covers paging, the filter prerequisite, permission gating and field-level degradation. Missing only sort semantics and what distinguishes a stay-date match from a creation-time match.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds genuine meaning by grouping stay-date vs creation-time vs last-modified filters and stating the at-least-one-filter constraint, which the schema does not encode. It stops short of explaining sort syntax or the start/end pairing of the two undescribed timestamp params.

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 reservations") plus paging, which immediately distinguishes it from the get_* siblings in the toolset. It does not explicitly contrast itself against alternatives such as get_hotel or list_rooms, but the reservation scope is unambiguous.

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 at least one filter" is an explicit usage precondition, and the scope requirements (read:reservation, read:customer) define when the call will succeed and when data degrades. No exclusion or alternative-tool routing is offered, so it falls short of a 5.

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