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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description reinforces this and usefully specifies that the read-only nature extends to ticket purchase, holding, or creation — meaningful for a dining-events tool where an agent might assume transactional capability. Rate limits and pagination behavior are not mentioned but are partly covered by schema params.

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?

Three tight sentences: the identity/definition first, then the read-only guarantee, then the precondition. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no explanation, and the required param plus read-only guarantee cover the essentials for a simple discovery tool. The only gap is the missing pointer to resy_event_detail for drilling into a single event.

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 date, limit, offset, and location are fully documented in the schema; the description only restates that location is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or semantic detail.

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?

Names a specific resource (ticketed dining events) and scope (in a Resy location), and defines the concept against a regular reservation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling resy_event_detail, which likely covers a single event, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-detail split.

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?

States a hard precondition ("Requires location") and negative scope (does not create, hold, or purchase), which contextualizes usage. But it never says when to prefer this over resy_search, resy_availability, or resy_event_detail, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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