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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the reservation starts as 'pending' until restaurant confirms, and that reservationId is the token for status and cancellation. This is valuable context beyond a simple create. However, it does not mention other behaviors like idempotency (though that is in the schema) or error handling, but for a creation tool, the key flow is covered.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Every part adds value: it states the purpose, the pending status, the returned token, and a pointer to a sibling tool. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and only 30% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It provides a high-level flow (pending → confirm) and highlights reservationId and tableId, but leaves most parameters unexplained and does not mention return structure beyond a single field. Lacks details on optional fields and behavior, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is only 30%, so the description must compensate. It adds context for tableId (source from check_table_availability) and mentions reservationId (output, not parameter). However, it does not explain phone, codeId, comment, partySize, durationMinutes, or domain. For a 10-parameter tool, this is insufficient; the description only clarifies a fraction of the parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request a table reservation.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_reservation_status (for checking status) and cancel_reservation (for cancellation), and implies create_order is different. Verb+resource is specific and 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?

Explicitly directs users to check status via get_reservation_status and to obtain tableId from check_table_availability. This provides clear alternatives and when to use them. It also hints that the reservation is asynchronous (pending) and requires follow-up.

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