opentable_get_reservations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention anything about the return format, ordering, whether it's read-only (implicit but not stated), or any potential errors. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the authentication note as a secondary requirement. No filler or redundancies; every word is informative.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the tool's simplicity (no params, unambiguous purpose) means the description covers the essential details: what it lists, for whom, and the auth prerequisite. It could mention the shape of the response, but given the straightforward nature and sibling context, it is mostly complete. A slight gap is lack of explicit mention of read-only behavior, but that is inferred from 'list'.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds context about its scope ('upcoming') which is useful, but there is nothing further needed since there are no parameters to elaborate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'upcoming reservations' for the logged-in user, which is specific and distinguishable from siblings like search or get_restaurant. It also implies a read-only action, aligning with the plural reservations vs. single restaurant focus.

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?

It explicitly notes the authentication requirement, which is a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the description's directness and the sibling set make it obvious this is for retrieving reservations, not for searching or booking. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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