get_reservations_by_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies default behavior for the userId parameter, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements beyond the default. It adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key behavioral detail (default). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and default behavior, but lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure) or error cases, which could be helpful for an agent despite the simple schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the userId parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the default behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. With 0 parameters effectively (since it's optional with a default), this exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Get all reservations') and the target ('for a specific user'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_reservations' (general) or 'get_reservations_by_room' (room-specific). It specifies the verb and resource precisely.

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 provides clear context by stating it defaults to the authenticated user, which helps understand when to use it (for user-specific queries). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_reservation' (single) or 'get_reservations' (all), so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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