check_tabelog_reservation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by specifying the scope (Tabelog Japan) and the 'upcoming' reservation aspect, which informs behavior beyond the structured annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the equivalence statement is an efficient way to convey the relation to the general tool. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema provided), the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, the missing parameter semantics and the lack of any guidance on prerequisites or return format prevent it from being fully complete, though output schema handles returns.

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?

There is only one parameter, restaurant_id, and the schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the description to clarify its meaning. The description does not explain what restaurant_id is or where to obtain it, relying on the tool name and context. This is a gap that the description could easily have filled.

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's purpose: a shortcut to check upcoming reservation availability specifically on Tabelog Japan. It distinguishes itself from the general check_restaurant_reservation by explicitly naming the provider, making its scope unambiguous.

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 implies usage for Tabelog reservation checks by stating it is equivalent to check_restaurant_reservation with provider='tabelog'. This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool versus the general alternative, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or other contexts.

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