tock_list_reservations

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description adds the genuinely useful operational precondition that a browser tab signed in to exploretock.com is required. It also discloses the shape of what comes back (venue, date/time, party size, experience), though it says nothing about pagination behavior or empty-list handling.

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, zero filler: the first front-loads the resource, scope, and return fields; the second carries the prerequisite. 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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the description covers purpose, filterable statuses, and the authentication environment an agent must satisfy before calling. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so limit, offset, and status are already fully documented in the schema, and the enum values named in the description mirror rather than extend the schema. The description contributes no additional format, default, or interaction semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the signed-in user's Tock reservations') and enumerates the returned fields (venue, date/time, party size, experience), which no sibling provides. An agent can distinguish it from tock_get_availability, tock_verify_reservation, and the restaurant-lookup siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the reservation scope, and the description does state a hard precondition (a signed-in exploretock.com tab via the ContextMint Bridge extension). However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like tock_verify_reservation or tock_get_profile, and gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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