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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with that: the tool only returns instructions and opens nothing. It adds operationally meaningful context beyond the annotations (what the payload looks like: screens, buttons, fields; and what to do next). What it doesn't cover — behavior when no alert exists, and exact output structure — is modest given there is no output schema.

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 two clauses are front-loaded and dense with useful routing information. However, the trailing 'Resy's official API: Resy has no public API (checked 27 Oct 2026)' is boilerplate irrelevant to this specific tool and pushes the size past what the decision requires.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description carries the only remaining burden: explaining that this is an instruction-returning tool paired with browser tools. It does that. Minor gaps remain around the outcome when no Notify alert exists, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is a 4, and nothing here degrades that.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a Notify alert in the user's own Resy account') and clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the removal. The name alone would suggest a mutation, so this clarification is essential to distinguish it from resy_set_a_notify_alert and the actual state-changing browser tools.

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 states the workflow: call this to get screens/buttons/fields, then execute with 'the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Resy Cloud Browser'. It also explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself'. It doesn't explicitly route the create-side intent to resy_set_a_notify_alert, but the guidance it gives for this tool is clear and actionable.

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