resy_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is 'Credential-free' and that it returns the 'full list' of locations, optionally filtered. It doesn't describe output format, pagination, ordering, or rate limits, which an agent might need. The credential-free note and the family-role context add value, but the absence of deeper behavioral details keeps it at a 3.

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 sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the filter behavior is second, and the cross-tool relevance plus credential-free note is last. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: state the action, clarify optional filtering, and explain why an agent would need this tool in the family.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core needs: what it returns (locations), how to narrow (q/country), why it's important (discovery for other tools), and that no credentials are needed. The main gap is the absence of any description of the returned data structure, but given the schema's parameter descriptions hint at fields (name, code, url_slug), the missing piece is minor.

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 schema already fully documents q and country. The description adds minimal extra meaning by calling q 'free-text substring' and country an exact match, but it mostly rephrases the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is correct; the added family-usage context is useful but not parameter-specific enough to push higher.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List Resy's operating locations (cities)') and clearly differentiates it from siblings by calling it 'the discovery source for the location value used throughout the rest of this family.' It also names the exact sibling tools (resy-search, resy-restaurant, resy-cuisines, etc.) that consume its output, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 implicitly teaches when to use this tool by stating it is the discovery source for location codes needed by other Resy tools. It also mentions optional filters (free-text, country) and notes it's credential-free. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer an alternative or when not to use it; the guidance is clear context rather than direct exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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