resy_find_slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the return payload contains config_tokens and those tokens expire quickly, which is a time-sensitivity constraint an agent must act on. No mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or empty-result behavior keeps it below 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and ending with the operational warning about token expiry. No filler.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main workflow and the token lifecycle well. However, it omits the purpose of lat/lng, the date/timezone format expectations, and what the response looks like when no slots exist, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only 20% (just the date format), so the description carries most of the burden. It names venue_id, date, and party_size at a semantic level, but lat and lng are completely unmentioned in both the description and the schema, leaving two of five parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('List available reservation slots'), the resource, and the three scoping inputs (venue, date, party size) in one sentence. An agent can immediately tell this apart from resy_search_venues (which finds venues) and resy_book (which consumes the tokens this tool produces).

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 clearly frames the fetch-then-book workflow ('Returns slot config_tokens suitable for booking... book soon after fetching'), which implicitly routes the agent to resy_book next. It never states exclusions or what to do when a venue has no availability, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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