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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is genuinely useful because the tool name implies an action. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the absence of a public Resy API, adding context beyond the annotations.

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 core mechanic is front-loaded, but the closing 'Resy's official API: Resy has no public API (checked 27 Oct 2026)' is awkwardly phrased and the future-dated check adds noise. The sentence about ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent is filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). Combined with the no-API note and the handoff to browser tools, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of explicit alternatives keeps it from a 5.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is needed or missing.

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 and resource ('List reservations in the user's own Resy account') and then clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than the data itself. That reframing is essential and present, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast with, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Resy Cloud Browser. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. versus resy_check_availability or a direct browser read), 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.