list_reservations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'View your upcoming reservations' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with no reservations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered about how the tool actually works in practice.

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 extremely concise at just four words: 'View your upcoming reservations.' Every word earns its place - 'View' specifies the action, 'your' indicates ownership/authentication context, 'upcoming' provides temporal scope, and 'reservations' identifies the resource. There's zero waste or redundancy in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. While it states the basic purpose, it doesn't address authentication requirements (implied by 'your' but not explicit), return format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar listing tools. For even a simple tool, more context about what 'view' actually returns would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema (enum values, default, description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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's purpose with 'View your upcoming reservations' - a specific verb ('View') and resource ('upcoming reservations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'make_reservation' (creation) and 'cancel_reservation' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_snipes' which might be similar in listing functionality. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about what distinguishes it from other listing tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_snipes' (likely listing different reservation types) and 'check_availability' (checking future availability rather than existing reservations), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other listing or checking tools. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage information.

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