resy_list_reservations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is already known. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the default scope ('Defaults to upcoming'), the effect of passing scope values ('pass scope="past" or "all" to broaden'), and the response content (resy_token, occasion, special_request, cancellability). No contradiction with annotations.

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 carry all essential information with no filler. Purpose comes first, parameter guidance second, and output payload last. Every clause 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, optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough: the action, scope defaults, and the notable output fields. It lacks pagination or authentication details, but those are less critical given the readOnly annotation and the single enum parameter. The cancellation-token hint also links it to the broader workflow.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter: it states the default ('upcoming'), the alternative enum values, and the effect of choosing them ('broaden'). This is meaningful guidance the schema alone does not provide.

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+resource: 'List the user's Resy reservations.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools (e.g., resy_list_payment_methods, resy_list_favorites) by naming the exact resource. It also adds the key deliverable (resy_token) that ties it to the cancellation workflow.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Each result includes the resy_token needed for cancellation' routes an agent toward this tool when preparing for resy_cancel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the default-to-upcoming scope and the 'to broaden' phrasing give practical usage direction.

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