query_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. It states the tool queries with filtering but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no filters (e.g., returns all records?). For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('查询预约记录') and immediately adds filtering details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (query with multiple filters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how results are structured. For a query tool in a server with many sibling alternatives, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing filterable fields (user ID, status, meet ID), but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema, such as how multiple filters combine or performance implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '查询预约记录' (query reservation records) with filtering capabilities. It specifies the action (query) and resource (reservation records), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_all_reservations' or 'query_reservations_by_mobile', which would require a 5.

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 mentions filtering by user ID, status, and meet ID, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_all_reservations' or 'query_reservations_by_mobile'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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