opentable_restaurant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the 'Credential-free' nature, the real-time aspect of availability, and specifies the returned data categories. It does not discuss error behaviors or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second details the return contents, and the third adds the credential-free trait. No wasteful words; 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description properly explains the return values (profile fields and timeslots). It provides enough context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool, including defaults and required restaurant_id. Minor gaps like error handling do not undermine its completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'given date/time and party size' but adds no format or semantic details beyond the schema's RFC3339 and default values. The restaurant_id is only referenced implicitly via the resource name.

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 opens with 'Get an OpenTable restaurant's profile and live availability', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It enumerates the returned profile fields (location, cuisines, hours, price band, review summary) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like opentable_restaurant_menus and opentable_restaurant_reviews by its availability focus.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a restaurant's profile and real-time booking slots. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for menus or reviews, but the content makes the use case evident. There are no exclusion criteria stated, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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