check_registrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the 2-month range cap, inclusive date handling, and the API key fallback behavior. For a read-oriented listing tool, this is solid; minor gaps like pagination or error behavior are less critical.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and then lists arguments in a clear labeled block. Every sentence adds useful information, with no repetition of the schema.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: scope, date range, parameters, and auth fallback. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: from_date and to_date with YYYY-MM-DD format and inclusive semantics, plus api_key with its environment-variable fallback. This is exactly the value the description should add.

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-resource pair: 'List all meal registrations (past and upcoming) within a date range.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from single-registration siblings like get_registration and monthly variants by emphasizing the range and 'all registrations' scope.

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 makes the use case clear: querying all registrations across a date range, with an explicit 2-month maximum. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as get_registration or get_monthly_registration, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.

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