resy_find_slots

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that the response contains config_tokens and that those tokens expire quickly. It does not cover rate limits or live-availability caveats, but it provides material, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to avoid acting on stale data.

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 with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose first, then adds the critical return-value and expiry warning. 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately discloses the key return value (config_tokens) and its short lifespan. However, the tool has five parameters with only 20% schema coverage, and the unexplained lat/lng fields create real ambiguity. The description also stops short of connecting the tokens to the specific booking sibling that consumes them, leaving room for an agent to misinterpret the overall flow.

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 description coverage is only 20% (just the date format), so the description must compensate for the other parameters. It does clarify venue_id ('specific venue'), date, and party_size conceptually, but lat and lng are completely unexplained and no guidance is given about whether they are optional locators or alternatives to venue_id. This leaves significant parameter ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available reservation slots at a specific venue'), and clearly identifies the two key query dimensions ('date + party size'). It also states that the output consists of booking-ready config_tokens, which distinguishes it from venue-search and booking tools. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 conveys the intended workflow: fetch slots, receive tokens, then book soon afterward because tokens expire quickly. While it does not explicitly name resy_book as the alternative or provide a when-not-to-use statement, the token-expiry warning gives clear operational context and makes the pre-booking usage pattern evident.

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