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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read and external-data profile is covered. The description usefully adds that availability is 'live' and only returned when a date and party size are supplied, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or how availability affects response shape.

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 dense sentences with the required-parameter constraint placed last for emphasis. No filler, and the optional-availability clause is attached to the parameters it depends on.

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. The description covers purpose, the geolocation requirement, and the optional availability mode, which is nearly everything an agent needs; the unresolved 'size' vs 'party_size' ambiguity is the main remaining gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does explain 'term' (name/cuisine/neighborhood) and that latitude/longitude are required plus what date/party size enable. However it is silent on the 'date' format and, more importantly, on the separate 'size' parameter, which sits alongside 'party_size' in the schema and is left ambiguous.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Search Resy restaurants') and scopes it to a free-text term near a location, with optional availability. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like resy_availability or resy_restaurant, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with, 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 implies the usage context (nearby restaurant discovery, optionally filtered by bookable availability) but never states when to choose this over resy_availability or resy_locations. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the guidance is only implied.

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