opentable_list_reservations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by revealing that each entry contains a security_token needed for cancellation or modification, which is critical for subsequent actions. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no waste. The critical information is front-loaded: purpose, default behavior, options, and output content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list endpoint with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It covers usage, scope options, and the return value's key feature (security_token). No output schema needed given this clarity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the single optional parameter: defaults to 'upcoming', with 'past' and 'all' options. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, providing clear guidance on parameter usage.

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 tool lists the authenticated user's OpenTable reservations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like opentable_book or opentable_cancel. It specifies the default scope (upcoming) and that entries include security_token for modifying/canceling, uniquely positioning it among 13 siblings.

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 explicitly explains the default scope and how to retrieve past or all reservations via the scope parameter. While it doesn't list alternative tools, the context is clear: this is for viewing reservations, not modifying them. Implicit guidance is adequate.

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