resy_add_notify

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (email notification on matching slot) and the date-window limitation, but does not mention side effects like idempotency, whether it replaces existing notifications, or response format. It adds some behavioral context beyond annotations but is not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the effect, and the third gives the time and date constraints. Every sentence 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?

For a 6-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the time window, and the date limit. It doesn't mention return value or idempotency, but those are not critical for a subscription tool. It omits the service_type_id default, but that is already in the schema. Overall, an agent can call this correctly without missing essential information.

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% (4 of 6 params described). The description adds meaning for time_start/time_end (window bounds, HH:MM format) and clarifies the date constraint, but does not elaborate on venue_id, party_size, or service_type_id. Since venue_id and party_size are self-explanatory from their names and the schema covers the rest, the description adds moderate value but does not fully compensate for the 33% 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: 'Subscribe to Priority Notify for a venue/date/party size' – a specific verb, resource, and key parameters. It also explains the outcome ('Resy emails you when a matching slot opens'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like resy_remove_notify or resy_list_notify.

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 context on when to use (to get notified about a slot) and a key constraint (notify window ~30 days). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer it should be used when the goal is to be notified rather than to book directly.

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