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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context beyond them: results are paginated ('one page'), the reviews are 'public,' and the payload shape (author/text/category ratings) is disclosed. It stops short of discussing rate limits or auth, so not a 5.

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 with zero waste: the primary action and its scope are front-loaded, followed by the routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with an output schema, complete annotations, and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, pagination, and where to find the required id. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents restaurant_id, page, and size. The description restates that restaurant_id is required and that page/size paginate, adding only marginal meaning beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Fetch), resource (OpenTable diner-review items), and scope (one page), plus the fields returned (author, text, per-category ratings). It also implies the required restaurant_id. An agent can distinguish it from sibling discovery tools without inspecting the schema.

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 routes the agent: use opentable_restaurant or opentable_search to discover restaurants, opentable_restaurant_menus for menus. This is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement.

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