opentable_restaurant_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that it returns author, text, and per-category ratings, and notes it is credential-free. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (beyond schema parameters), ordering, rate limits, or potential errors, making it only moderately 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately concise with no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the essential details for a simple paginated review tool: the resource, the output fields, and the credential requirement. While it lacks an output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. Minor omissions like ordering or error behavior prevent a perfect score but do not significantly hinder use.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (page, size, restaurant_id) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, though it implicitly relates 'page' to the page-based retrieval mentioned in the description.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a page of an OpenTable restaurant's diner reviews.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OpenTable restaurant's diner reviews'), and mentions page-based retrieval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opentable_restaurant and opentable_restaurant_menus.

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 provides clear context by specifying the source (OpenTable restaurants) and that it is 'Credential-free,' which informs usage prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other review tools) or any exclusions, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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