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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Covers authentication, scoping, idempotency, and alternatives but does not disclose return value or behavior if both parameter sets are provided. Mutation is implied but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with critical auth requirement, then efficiently explains the two usage patterns. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema provided; description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., created reservation ID or object). Also missing behavior for conflicting parameter groups. However, it covers auth, scoping, and idempotency adequately.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. Description adds value by explaining the two parameter groups are alternatives and clarifying idempotency key usage, going beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a reservation and specifies required scope and two alternative parameter patterns (check_in/check_out vs start_at/end_at). Distinguishes from siblings like cancel_reservation and check_availability.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use each date/time pattern and mentions authentication scope and tenant binding. Could be improved by specifying when not to use, but sibling names provide implicit context.

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