list_reservations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the context 'live unary RPC to the coordinator', implying a direct, real-time query rather than a cached view. However, it doesn't elaborate on return behavior, pagination, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a minor addition beyond the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It omits a clear action verb and leaves the reader to infer that the tool lists reservations. Effective conciseness requires clarity; this lacks both.

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?

While the tool is simple with zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is too vague. It doesn't explicitly say it returns a list of reservations, what constitutes 'current', or how this relates to the coordinator. The description leaves too much ambiguity for a tool that should be straightforward to describe.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 'Current reservations (live unary RPC to the coordinator)' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without a clear verb like 'list' or 'gets'. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools such as list_places or list_resources, and the technical detail about the RPC adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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