list_reservations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is a key safety trait, and reveals that doorCode fields are stripped from results. It also notes that create reservation is not implemented. These are meaningful disclosures, though pagination, response shape, and rate limits are not mentioned.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence carries useful information: endpoint, read-only behavior, field stripping, and a limitation. There is no waste or redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool, but it leaves gaps. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify response contents, date parameter formats, or how the stripped fields affect the result. For correct filtering, an agent would benefit from more detail on arrivalStartDate and arrivalEndDate.

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 only 25%: only 'match' has a description. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not compensate for the undocumented listingId, arrivalEndDate, or arrivalStartDate parameters. Date formats and filter semantics are left entirely to inference.

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 specific operation ('List reservations'), the HTTP endpoint (GET /v1/reservations), and the read-only nature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_conversations and report_occupancy by naming the exact resource.

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 usage: it is the tool for listing reservations and is read-only. It also warns that creation is not implemented, which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide alternative tool routing.

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