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 profile is covered. The description adds that the tool is scoped to a single location code and depends on other tools, but discloses nothing about rate limits, coverage completeness, or ordering beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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 no filler; the core purpose leads and the prerequisite routing follows. The phrasing 'returned by resy_search or resy_restaurant' is marginally redundant with the next sentence but does not bloat the text.

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, and the description covers the required input's provenance plus alternatives for obtaining it. For a single-parameter lookup tool this is essentially complete, with only the ambiguous 'returned by' clause as a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as a Resy location code or numeric id with its origin field. The description reinforces 'one location code' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (List) and resource (cuisines) scoped to Resy restaurants in one location code, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like resy_search and resy_restaurant. The trailing phrase 'returned by resy_search or resy_restaurant' is slightly ambiguous about what exactly is returned (the cuisine list or the location code), which keeps it 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?

Gives concrete routing: use resy_locations to discover location codes, or resy_search to find restaurants, effectively telling the agent where to obtain the required input. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but the prerequisite chaining is clear and actionable.

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