check_restaurant_reservation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds minor behavioral context with 'live' and 'upcoming', implying real-time data and future focus, but it does not elaborate on response format or limitations. No contradiction exists.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, making it easy to parse without any filler.

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?

While the output schema and annotations cover operational details, the description omits any reference to the closely related sibling 'check_tabelog_reservation', creating ambiguity about when each should be used. This is a notable contextual gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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?

Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 primary action ('check') and resource (restaurant booking vacancy and available dates). It is specific enough to understand its function, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'check_tabelog_reservation', which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'check_tabelog_reservation' or other dining tools. The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent without clues about selection criteria, such as provider-based routing or preferred usage scenarios.

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