opentable_list_reservations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it operates on the authenticated user's reservations, defaults to upcoming, and each entry includes the security_token needed for downstream cancel/modify operations. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but it goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The first states the core action, the second gives the key invocation option, and the third explains the security_token relevance. No filler or repetition.

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 operation with two optional enum parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially addressed by noting that entries include security_token and by the view parameter's response-shape explanation, though pagination, ordering, and full return-structure details are not described.

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?

Only the view parameter is documented in the schema (50% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining scope: its default and the 'past'/'all' broadening options. The view parameter carries a thorough schema description, so together the two parameters are effectively well explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the authenticated user's OpenTable reservations.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like opentable_search_restaurants, opentable_list_favorites, and opentable_book by focusing on the user's own reservation records.

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 gives clear context for when to call it: to see the authenticated user's reservations, with an explicit default of upcoming and instructions to pass scope="past" or scope="all" to broaden. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that no sibling tool is a realistic substitute.

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