query_reservations_by_name

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 this is a query operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add any other behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, response format, error handling, or whether it returns partial or exact matches). For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the core functionality, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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 context—a query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema—the description is incomplete. It adequately states what the tool does but lacks crucial details: it doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what data is included in reservation records), behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, or how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it insufficient for full agent understanding without additional inference or trial.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions '预约人姓名' (reservation person name), which aligns with the schema's parameter 'name' described as '预约人姓名.' With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single required parameter. The description doesn't provide additional context like format examples, case sensitivity, or matching logic, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: '根据预约人姓名查询预约记录' translates to 'Query reservation records by reservation person name.' It specifies the verb (query) and resource (reservation records) with a specific filter criterion (by name). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'query_reservations_by_mobile' or 'query_reservations,' which might have similar purposes but different filtering parameters.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'query_reservations_by_mobile' (for querying by mobile number) or 'query_all_reservations' (for broader queries), nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit instructions.

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