Retrieve a Resy restaurant's profile by ID. Get name, cuisine, price tier, ratings, address, contact info, and description in clean JSON.
Get a Resy restaurant's profile. Returns a restaurant's profile: name, cuisine, price tier, rating/review count, address/neighborhood, contact info, and description text. Credential-free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| restaurant_id | Yes | Resy restaurant id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add value: it explicitly states 'Credential-free' and lists the data fields returned. This is meaningful for an agent deciding whether authentication is needed and what to expect from the response, though it does not mention error behavior 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?
The description is three short sentences with no filler: purpose, returned content, and credential status. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains highly compact.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the credential requirement. It could mention how the restaurant_id is obtained or what happens on invalid IDs, but those are minor gaps given 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter restaurant_id is documented as 'Resy restaurant id'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('Get a Resy restaurant's profile') and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The profile-oriented scope distinguishes it from sibling Resy tools like resy_search, resy_availability, and resy_events.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as resy_search to find a restaurant ID or resy_availability for booking-related needs. The description implies use when a profile is needed, but it does not state exclusions or point to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.