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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, open-world read. The description adds the filtering constraint but nothing about result volume, ordering, or how locations relate to downstream tools beyond the one-line framing. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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-value details need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, filters, and downstream role adequately; only minor gaps like result cardinality or pagination remain, which are not critical for this discovery 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps both filters in prose ('free-text substring and/or country'), which corresponds to q and country, but leaves the q-to-substring mapping implicit and gives no format or matching details. It adds some value over the bare schema without fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 (list) and resource (operating locations/cities) with clear scope ('full list'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the discovery source for the location value used by the other Resy tools, so an agent can tell it apart from resy_search or resy_availability.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to reach for it: it is 'the discovery source for the location value used throughout the rest of the Resy tools,' implying it should be called to obtain location inputs before other calls. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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