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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds that location values are returned inline as locationCode on sibling results, but says nothing else about behavior beyond that; with annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the parameter sourcing hint. No filler, though the requirement statement is slightly redundant with the schema's required field.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single input parameter is fully clarified. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly; only the when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only declares location as a bare string. The description compensates well by explaining that it can be a short city code or numeric id and that it is already surfaced as locationCode on resy_search/resy_restaurant results.

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 resource (cuisines) with clear scope: cuisines present among restaurants in a Resy location. This distinguishes it from siblings like resy_search and resy_restaurant, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus resy_search, resy_restaurant, or resy_locations. It states the prerequisite (location is required) but leaves the selection context to inference.

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