get_reservations_by_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all reservations for a specific room') and adds qualifying information ('optionally filtered by date'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context about behavior, response format, and operational constraints. For a read operation with 2 parameters, it's minimally viable but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to properly use and interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the optional date filter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get all reservations') and target resource ('for a specific room'), with additional scope details ('optionally filtered by date'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_reservations' (general) and 'get_reservations_by_user' (different filter).

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific room' and 'optionally filtered by date', helping differentiate from 'get_reservations' (no room filter) and 'get_room_availability' (availability vs. reservations). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives.

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