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 of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'requires authentication' and 'for the logged-in user', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the user is not authenticated, or what the response format contains, leaving significant 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 one concise sentence with an additional clause about authentication. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core action. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the actor, and a key prerequisite (authentication). Minor details like the exact scope of 'upcoming' (e.g., today or future) are unspecified, but the description provides enough context for basic 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. Per the rubric, 0 parameters provides a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information. The schema is trivially fully covered with an empty properties object.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all upcoming reservations for the logged-in user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opentable_make_reservation or opentable_cancel_reservation, and it explicitly scopes the action to the user's own upcoming reservations.

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 implies the tool is for viewing a user's own upcoming reservations and requires authentication, hinting at the need to log in first. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives such as searching for restaurants or checking availability, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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