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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by confirming no ticket purchase occurs and by disclosing that per-tier 'live ticket availability' is included in the response. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or whether availability changes in real time, but it meaningfully supplements the safety annotations.

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 compact sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the prerequisite and read-only constraints following. The dense parenthetical is slightly heavy but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 need not be detailed, and the description nonetheless summarizes them; annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is the undocumented party_size parameter, which prevents full completeness for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does explain the provenance of event_url_slug, restaurant_url_slug, and location (all from a prior resy_events result), which is genuinely useful. However, party_size is never mentioned and no format or format-of-slug guidance is given, leaving one parameter entirely undocumented.

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 (detail) and resource (a Resy ticketed dining event), enumerating the exact payload: full description, event-day instructions, and per-ticket-tier package breakdown with price, inclusions, and live availability. It is clearly distinct from resy_events, which it references as the source of the slugs.

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 positions the tool as a follow-up that consumes slugs from a prior resy_events result, and clarifies 'Read-only discovery; does not purchase a ticket' to rule out a purchase interpretation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for actually buying a ticket, so the when-not side is partial.

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