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 usefully discloses the shape of the returned profile (fields listed) and the id requirement, but adds no rate limit, auth, or cache/error context.

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, field list front-loaded and the required-input constraint at the end. Nothing superfluous, though the list could be trimmed.

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 explained, yet the description spends space on them. The real gap is routing: it never tells the agent how to find restaurantId, which is the one thing needed to invoke it.

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% for the single restaurant_id param, and the description only restates that it is required without format, source, or example. With only one parameter and an output schema present, this is roughly baseline.

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 (fetches a profile) and resource (Resy restaurant), and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like resy_search or resy_locations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It notes that a restaurantId is required but gives no guidance on when to use this lookup versus resy_search, resy_availability, or how to obtain a valid restaurantId in the first place. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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