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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral trait—'inline live availability per result'—but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or the meaning of the size parameter, so it adds only modest value.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, requirements second. The explicit requirement sentence slightly duplicates the schema's required array, but it is short and useful rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description is adequate on intent but omits the date_time format, the size parameter, and any routing relative to the sibling detail/review tools, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It assigns roles to term, latitude, longitude, date_time, and party_size and flags the three required fields, but leaves 'size' unexplained and gives no date_time format or coordinate conventions, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Search OpenTable restaurants by free-text term near a location'), plus the discovery inputs (date/time, party size). It does not name a sibling like opentable_restaurant to draw the search-vs-detail boundary, but the search semantics and 'inline live availability per result' make its role clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (search when you have a term and coordinates), and required inputs are stated as a prerequisite. However, it never says when to use this over opentable_restaurant or how to obtain coordinates, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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