Check Availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the lookup happens through the watcher service with a real browser, which is meaningful behavioral context. Yet it does not mention potential delays, dependency on the watcher service, failure modes, or the effect of timeout_sec beyond its name. Some transparency is provided, but gaps remain.

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 core purpose and followed by concise parameter-mode guidance. The parenthetical is used efficiently. It could be bulleted for even faster parsing, but the current structure is clean and free of fluff.

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 output schema exists and the tool has 6 optional parameters with no annotations or schema descriptions, the description covers the main modes and real-browser behavior reasonably well. It leaves moderate ambiguities (e.g., required parameters when watch_id is absent, relationship between store_name and store_url, behavior on invalid inputs), but these are minor enough that an agent can make a correct first call.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively by mapping watch_id to a reuse mode and store_name/store_url + target_date + party_size to a direct-query mode, adding clear semantic grouping. It does not explain timeout_sec or clarify whether store_name and store_url are alternatives or both required, but overall it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 checks available reservation times in real time ('지금 이 순간 예약 가능한 시간을 확인합니다') and distinguishes two invocation modes (watch_id vs direct parameters). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the verb-resource pairing is specific enough to separate it from reservation_status or reserve_now.

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?

It provides clear instructions for using the tool: provide watch_id to reuse watch conditions, or directly specify store_name/store_url, target_date, and party_size. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., reservation_status) and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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