The Dinner Table Club

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses that results carry price, seats-left status, and a ticket link, and that sold-out dinners have a waitlist. It does not mention any rate limits or default result ordering, hence not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and filter axes, then result contents; every sentence carries information. The city enumeration partially duplicates the schema enum, which slightly dilutes conciseness, but the 'coming soon' note earns it partially back.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return shape, yet it still names the key fields helpfully. With all parameters documented in the schema and 0 required params, an agent has everything needed; only ordering/pagination semantics are left unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents city, limit, start_date, end_date and include_sold_out, making 3 the baseline. The description only marginally adds by flagging that San Francisco is 'coming soon', which contextualizes one enum value.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (upcoming The Dinner Table Club dinner parties), plus the filtering axes (city and date range). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings get_dinner_details (single event) and list_cities (city enumeration).

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 through 'upcoming ... filtered by city and date range' and notes which cities exist, but never states when to prefer this over get_dinner_details or list_cities, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context about what content the details contain (description, restaurant/menu, FAQ topics), but since an output schema exists, much of this is restated rather than new behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource before the details. The parenthetical FAQ list is somewhat dense but each item conveys real scope information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is naming the purpose and the id provenance, both of which are handled. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note behavior if the dinner_id is invalid or stale.

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 100% and the single dinner_id parameter is fully described in the schema as coming from find_dinners. The description reinforces that provenance but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (full details for one dinner) and explicitly ties the record to find_dinners, distinguishing it from the list/search sibling. It further enumerates the detail categories returned, so an agent knows this is the drill-down tool rather than the discovery tool.

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 phrase 'returned by find_dinners' clearly establishes the precondition that an id must come from a prior find_dinners call, which is the key usage context. It does not, however, state any exclusion or offer an alternative tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content scope (live vs coming soon, calendar counts), but nothing about freshness, ordering, or rate limits, and with an output schema present that content is largely structured elsewhere.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return semantics attached; no filler, nothing repeated from the title beyond the necessary verb.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema documenting the return shape, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it. No gap remains that structured fields do not already fill.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to document; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies a complete, unfiltered enumeration.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (cities) and even enumerates the fields returned: live/coming-soon status and dinner count. It is clearly distinguishable from find_dinners and get_dinner_details, which operate on dinners rather than cities, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — call this to discover which cities the club operates in — but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus the sibling dinner tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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