Which tables of the location are free or busy in a given time window (uses the floor plan published by the restaurant). Pass the chosen table id to create_reservation as tableId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | Yes | ISO 8601 datetime | |
| domain | Yes | ||
| durationMinutes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies the tool is read-only by stating it checks availability, but does not explicitly declare it as non-destructive or safe. More transparency on side effects or permissions would be beneficial.
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?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose and usage result, but lacks explanation of output format (what the tool returns) and does not describe all parameters. Given no output schema, the return value should be mentioned.
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 only 33% (start parameter has a description). The description adds no explanation for 'domain' or 'durationMinutes', failing to compensate for the schema gap. It mentions 'table id' but that is not a parameter of this tool.
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 clearly states the tool checks which tables are free or busy in a given time window, and it explicitly references the floor plan and the connection to create_reservation. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_reservation or get_reservation_status.
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?
Provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (before creating a reservation) and directs the user to pass the chosen table id to create_reservation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: menu, item, search, cart, order, reservation, availability, store info, and policies. Even similar tools like get_item vs search_products are clearly differentiated by exact lookup vs semantic search. There is no meaningful overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, create_, cancel_, check_, update_, search_). No mixed conventions or stylistic deviations exist.
13 tools is well-scoped for the guest-facing restaurant domain, covering menu browsing, search, cart, orders, reservations, store info, and policies. Each tool is justified and the count is within the ideal range.
Core lifecycle coverage is solid: menu, cart, order placement/status, reservations, and availability are all covered. The only notable gap is the absence of an order cancellation tool, but this may be intentional and does not block primary workflows.