list_reservations

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions list operation and optional filters but does not specify if read-only, rate limits, or ordering. The description is minimally transparent; user must infer safety from context.

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?

Description is relatively concise with a short paragraph and an Args list. However, the Args section largely repeats parameter info from the schema, and could be more compact. No wasted sentences.

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 tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, pagination, multiple filters) and no annotations, the description lacks information on default order, maximum page size, or behavior when no filters applied. Output schema exists but is not described. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section adds minimal meaning (e.g., 'skip: Paging offset', 'take: Page size (default 100)') beyond parameter names, but is not detailed enough. For 7 parameters, the descriptions are brief but functional.

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 it lists court reservations with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_reservation (single) and cancel_reservation (delete). The verb 'list' and resource 'reservations' are specific.

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 example queries ('what reservations are on court 3 this Saturday?') and lists parameter descriptions, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings like list_events or get_reservation. Usage guidance is implied but not exhaustive.

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