get_registrations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only describes the content shape ('with open/closed state'). It does not say whether this is a read-only listing, whether results are scoped to a user/workspace, whether enrollment counts or capacity are included, or how the open/closed state is determined. The only useful disclosure is that the state field exists, which is minimal.

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?

A single compact sentence with the distinguishing content front-loaded and no filler. Its structural weakness is that it is a noun phrase with no leading verb, so the sentence describes data rather than the tool's action.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, which lowers the bar. However, it leaves the action and selection context unstated, so an agent still cannot be fully confident about when this tool is the correct call versus other listing tools in the same family.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is lost because the schema has no properties.

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 identifies the resource (special programs requiring pre-registration, e.g. Infant Massage, ASQ Connection) with open/closed state, but never states the action - there is no verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. An agent can infer it returns registration data, but the definition reads as a data label rather than a tool purpose, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_events or list_program_types.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The examples (Infant Massage, ASQ Connection) hint at the domain but give no decision rule for choosing this over get_events or search_events. The agent must guess from the name alone whether this is the right retrieval tool.

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