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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: the return payload is a step-by-step guide of screens, buttons, and fields, the tool 'opens nothing by itself', and execution must be delegated to browser tools. The note that Resy has no public API explains the roundabout design. Missing detail on how granular or long the returned guide is.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the most important correction ('returns how to do it step by step ... opens nothing by itself') front-loaded right after the purpose. The trailing API note is somewhat extraneous, and the embedded date check adds noise without helping invocation.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what happens, what comes back in general terms, and what the agent should do next. It lacks any indication of the shape or size of the returned instructions, so an agent cannot predict the response format beyond 'steps'.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals that no arguments are accepted and the work is contextualized elsewhere.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Check availability in Resy') and the second immediately clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than querying anything itself. That clarification is essential because the name alone would mislead, but the description itself does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as resy_search_restaurants or resy_book_a_reservation.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: call this first, then execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Resy Cloud Browser, and states that this call performs no action on its own. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or how it relates to the booking/search siblings, so the exclusion side is missing.

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