list_holds

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden on its own. "List" signals a non-mutating read, but the definition never states that it is read-only, says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination limits, and only implies that the unfiltered form returns all statuses.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the filter vocabulary folded into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing needed for a call is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a one-parameter list tool with a clear default is close to fully specified. The remaining gap is behavioral: nothing about ordering, result size, or whether the status match is exact, which matters for a listing endpoint.

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 0% and the schema itself only offers an untyped anyOf string/null with no enum, so the description is the sole source of meaning for the single parameter. It supplies the four valid values (waiting, ready, picked_up, cancelled) and, by contrast with "all", communicates that the filter is optional and defaults to unfiltered — real added meaning beyond the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("List holds") plus the vocabulary for narrowing the result. It is clearly distinguishable from the mutating siblings place_hold, update_hold, and cancel_hold by the verb alone, though it never names a sibling or an alternative listing tool such as list_loans.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read path for holds and that the default returns everything. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to place_hold/update_hold/cancel_hold when the agent's intent is actually a mutation rather than a query.

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