tock_list_reservations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly does not repeat that. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the authentication requirement (browser tab signed in via fetchproxy) and the specific fields returned. It does not contradict annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior, but that is covered in the schema for limit/offset. Given annotation coverage, this is strong.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the primary action and resource, then lists the returned data and the critical prerequisite. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally sized for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields (venue, date/time, party size, experience) and the authentication prerequisite. The pagination parameters are documented in the schema. The openWorldHint annotation suggests the environment may change, which is not contradicted. No critical missing information prevents correct invocation. A small gap is not describing the response format, but that is partially addressed by listing fields. Overall adequate.

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%, meaning all three parameters (limit, offset, status) already have descriptions. The tool description adds nothing new about parameter semantics. Baseline is 3, which is appropriate since the schema carries the full load and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('the signed-in user's Tock reservations'), and the scope (upcoming, past, or canceled) plus the data returned (venue, date/time, party size, experience). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on metros, restaurants, or availability, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies when to use it: to fetch the user's own reservations, which is distinct from sibling tools like tock_search_restaurants or tock_get_availability. It also gives a concrete prerequisite ('Requires a browser tab signed in to exploretock.com via the fetchproxy extension'), which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., tock_verify_reservation for a single reservation), but the context is clear enough.

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