List Inquiries (leads)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context about the compact default output and the full=true flag, plus enumerates the fields returned. No contradictions; it enriches the annotation information.

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 sentences: the first states the action and key outputs, the second explains the compact/full default. No redundant phrases; every word carries meaning. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing key fields and default behavior. It gives enough context to understand the tool's role among siblings. However, the behavior of 'limit' and any pagination semantics are not mentioned, which leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description clarifies the 'full' parameter and relates it to the output, but doesn't add meaning to 'limit' or 'since_utc' beyond what's in the schema. Thus it stays at 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 lists pre-booking guest inquiries/leads with specific fields (requested dates, party size, source channel, thread_ids). The term 'pre-booking' distinguishes it from list_bookings, and the mention of thread_ids for messaging tools differentiates it from get_inquiry or list_bookings.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for pre-booking leads, implying when it should be used over booking-related tools. The mention of thread_ids for messaging tools hints at a workflow, but it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of list_bookings' or 'for confirmed bookings use list_bookings', so it sits just above implied usage.

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