resy_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ("the same read-only availability an anonymous visitor sees before signing in") and that it has no side effects ("does not create, hold, modify, or cancel a reservation"). This gives the agent strong confidence about safety and authentication expectations, though it doesn't cover response formatting or rate limits.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence clarifies return scope and data source, and the third sentence disambiguates from booking tools. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 tool is a simple read-only lookup and the description covers what it does, what inputs it takes, and that it is non-mutating. Since there is no output schema, a somewhat richer note about the response shape would help, and it doesn't explain how to obtain a restaurant_id, but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (restaurant_id, date, party_size) with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description only re-mentions the parameters in prose ("restaurant, date, and party size") without adding format, constraints, or usage nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: "Get a Resy restaurant's bookable reservation timeslots." The description goes beyond a generic label by specifying the inputs (restaurant, date, party size) and explicitly marking this as read-only availability. It differentiates from sibling tools like resy_search and resy_restaurant by focusing on bookable timeslots rather than search or restaurant details.

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 frames this as a discovery/read-only tool: "This is discovery only; it does not create, hold, modify, or cancel a reservation." It tells the agent when to use it (to check bookable timeslots for a specific restaurant/date/party size) and when not to use it (for booking actions). It does not name alternative Resy tools or provide explicit selection criteria vs siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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