list_reservations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes no claims about destructiveness or read-only nature (the listing implies read-only), and it clearly discloses what is NOT returned (credentials). It doesn't mention pagination or limits for a list operation, but the coverage of inclusions/exclusions is solid. The explicit credential exclusion is valuable transparency.

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, zero waste. The first sentence lists what's returned with example status values; the second sentence covers the crucial exclusion and redirects to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (0 params) and has both an output schema and clear sibling context. The description fully covers what the list contains and explicitly excludes, and redirects to get_reservation for deeper detail. Minor gap: no mention of sorting, filtering, or volume limits, but for a parameterless list tool with an output schema, this is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters (0% of schema to document), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none. The description instead focuses on what the output contains, which is appropriate for a parameterless list tool.

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 is specific: 'List all of my TechZone reservations' with a clear enumeration of included fields (name, status, environment, region, dates) and even lists example statuses. It also explicitly contrasts against the sibling get_reservation tool, distinguishing its scope. This is a strong, specific verb+resource statement.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Credentials are never included here - use get_reservation for full details on one reservation'), naming the alternative. This directly addresses the sibling relationship with get_reservation and defines clear usage boundaries.

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