resy_add_notify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the subscription effect ('Resy emails you when a matching slot opens'), the time-window semantics, and the ~30-day date limitation. It does not address duplicate subscriptions or auth requirements, but the core side-effect is transparent.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, outcome, parameter semantics, and a date-window constraint. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 6-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision points: what the tool does, what it triggers, how time bounds work, and the date-window limitation. The optional service_type_id is documented in the schema. Return value/error behavior is not described, but that is not a blocking gap for a subscription action.

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 67%, with venue_id and party_size lacking descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining that time_start/time_end define the acceptable window and reiterating the HH:MM 24h format; it also contextualizes the date restriction. Since venue_id and party_size are self-explanatory names, the combined coverage is adequate.

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 first sentence names the specific action ('Subscribe to Priority Notify'), the resource ('venue/date/party size'), and the observable outcome ('Resy emails you when a matching slot opens'). This clearly sets it apart from sibling management tools like list_notify and remove_notify, as well as from booking/search tools.

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 the tool is for passive waiting rather than immediate booking, and it warns that only near-term dates are accepted. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over find_slots or book, and it does not mention how it relates to existing notify subscriptions.

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