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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: results come back 'with inline live availability per result,' which tells the agent the response embeds real-time booking signals. It does not cover 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the availability detail, then the required-parameter requirement. No filler. Slightly denser than necessary but every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. It covers purpose, scope, and required inputs, so an agent has enough to call it correctly; finer points like pagination or result ordering remain unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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 all six parameters including defaults. The description reinforces the three required params (term, latitude, longitude) and mentions date/time and party size, but adds no format, unit, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (OpenTable restaurants) and scopes it precisely: free-text term near a location, for date/time and party size, with inline live availability. An agent can distinguish this from detail-oriented siblings like opentable_restaurant or opentable_restaurant_reviews. It stops short of naming a sibling, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by 'Search ... near a location ... Requires term, latitude, and longitude,' which tells the agent it must supply a geo-anchored query. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., why not use a generic restaurant-detail tool). Implied but adequate.

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