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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses that no side effect occurs ('opens nothing by itself'), that the return value is a step-by-step screens/buttons/fields walkthrough, and that the actual mutation happens via browser tools. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It stops short of saying what happens if the user is not signed in or lacking an active Notify slot.

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 instruction workflow is front-loaded in sentence one, but there is filler ("from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent") and a redundant closing phrase ("Resy's official API: Resy has no public API"). The dated API note earns its place by warning the agent not to look for an API, but the wording could be tighter.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essential contract: instructions out, no side effects, browser tools for execution, no public API. The main gap is that it never says what inputs the agent must collect from the user (restaurant, date, time, party size) before running the browser 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs, though it also does not hint at what information (date, party size) the agent must gather conversationally before driving the browser.

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 ("Set a Notify alert in the user's own Resy account") and scopes it to the user's own account, which separates it from the generic browser siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with resy_remove_a_notify_alert or resy_check_availability, but the verb 'Set' plus 'Notify alert' makes the target action unambiguous.

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 clear condition-of-use plus the follow-up path: this tool only returns step-by-step instructions and opens nothing, then the agent performs the action with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Resy Cloud Browser. No explicit exclusion (e.g., 'use resy_remove_a_notify_alert to delete one') is stated, which keeps it below a 5.

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