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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is partly cleared. The description adds concrete value beyond them by spelling out that it will not 'create, hold, or purchase a ticket' and that location is mandatory, which is the exact concern for a ticketed-event endpoint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core definition before the behavioral caveat and the required-param note. No filler, though the parenthetical definition runs slightly long.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is pagination/date parameter guidance; otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter meaning, but it only notes that location is required (already derivable from the required array). The date format, limit, and offset semantics are documented nowhere, leaving three of four parameters opaque.

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+resource: 'Ticketed dining events ... in a Resy location,' and defines what qualifies as an event ('fixed-price, fixed-capacity experiences'). It distinguishes the concept from a regular reservation, though it never names the sibling detail tool (resy_event_detail) that an agent would need for follow-up.

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?

'Read-only discovery' implies the browse use case, and 'does not create, hold, or purchase a ticket' rules out transactional intent. However, no sibling is named and no condition routes the agent between this and resy_event_detail or resy_search, so usage is only implied.

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