io_list_reservations

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, and the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior, default/max limits at the tool level, or how the 'view' mode affects the payload. It largely repeats filtering facts already present in the schema.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded before the filtering capabilities, with no wasted words or 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?

For a 10-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials but omits anything about response shape, pagination semantics (limit/startAt interaction), or ordering defaults at the description level. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and every one of the 10 parameters is documented inline, including enum values for view and orderByType, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (iOffice reservations), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like io_create_reservation and the singular io_get_reservation. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with the sibling it most closely resembles, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 mention of filtering by date range, space, or user implies the collection-listing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as io_get_reservation for a single record. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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