opentable_search_restaurants

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about returned data (cuisine, neighborhood, etc.) and explicitly states what is not included (bookable slot tokens), going beyond the annotation to set expectations fully.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every clause adds value by specifying either what is returned or what is not, achieving maximal efficiency.

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?

The description clearly defines input (search query) and output (list of restaurants with key fields) and flags the absence of slot tokens. However, it omits details like pagination, result limits, or sorting, which are relevant for a search tool. Nonetheless, the core functionality is adequately covered 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?

The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (6 of 8). The overall description does not add further meaning beyond the schema; for the two undocumented parameters (latitude, longitude), no additional context is provided. Thus, the description meets the baseline but does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Search OpenTable for restaurants') and lists returned fields (cuisine, neighborhood, price band, rating, description, URL). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'opentable_find_slots' by noting that slots are not included, making the tool's 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (search) and when not (to get slots, use opentable_find_slots). However, it does not mention other sibling tools like opentable_get_restaurant for detailed information on a specific venue, which could provide additional guidance.

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