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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals important behavioral details: Tock returns the full open-date/time set by default, passing a date only focuses the summary, and no booking side effect occurs. The external reservation redirect adds practical context.

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 carry distinct, high-value information: what the tool returns, how the date parameter behaves, and the non-booking caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 availability tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents, the date behavior, and the reservation limitation. The party_size parameter is already fully described in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the date parameter by explaining how it affects the output ('focus the summary') while noting the full set is still returned. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'center the calendar on' wording.

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 states a specific verb-object pair ('Get a venue's bookable calendar') and enumerates the returned content: experiences, prices, party sizes, cancellation policy, and open dates/times. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tock_get_restaurant or tock_list_reservations.

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 explains when the optional date parameter is useful ('pass a date to focus the summary') and explicitly warns that this MCP does not book, directing the agent to exploretock.com for reservations. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the usage context is clear.

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

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

Beyond the readonly annotation, the description discloses non-obvious behavioral requirements: it depends on a browser tab signed in to exploretock.com via the fetchproxy extension, and it derives identity from reservation records, requiring at least one reservation. This is valuable context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 core purpose, and then adds only essential prerequisite information. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 simple profile identity tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key prerequisites. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by naming the expected fields (name, email), and the view parameter description in the schema fills in response-shape behavior.

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 only parameter, view, is fully documented in the input schema with a clear explanation of compact versus full response shapes. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific operation: 'Get the signed-in user's Tock account identity (name, email).' It names the resource and output, so an agent can tell this from reservation or restaurant tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explains important prerequisites: a signed-in browser tab via the fetchproxy extension and at least one reservation on the account. This gives useful context for when the tool can be used, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safe, read-only nature. The description adds the response field list but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. With annotations present, this meets the baseline without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and return contents are front-loaded, followed by the crucial slug-source guidance. 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 simple get-by-identifier tool with a read-only annotation, the description is complete: it names the input, the source of the input, and the expected response fields. No output schema exists, so enumerating the return value in prose fills that gap adequately.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent where the slug comes from (tock_search_restaurants or exploretock.com URLs), which complements the schema's example. This extra provenance guidance justifies a 4.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get details for a Tock venue by slug' and enumerates the returned content (name, cuisine, price band, location, description, bookable experiences). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating the slug comes from tock_search_restaurants, clarifying its role in the workflow.

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 gives clear usage context: the slug is obtained from tock_search_restaurants or an exploretock.com URL, so an agent knows this tool is the follow-up lookup after a search. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical selection.

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

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying that the check is read-only and auth-free, and by enumerating the exact diagnostics returned: role, port, version, extension link state, round-trip time, and a plain-English failure-mode hint. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint.

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 substantial but every clause earns its place: it states the action, the exact test URL, the full set of returned diagnostics, the safety properties, and the intended usage trigger. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose before diving into detail.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns and when to invoke it. It fully covers the return diagnostics and even distinguishes the possible failure modes, making the tool self-contained and easy for an agent to use correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than input semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Round-trips'), a specific resource ('fetchproxy bridge'), and a concrete target URL ('/robots.txt'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the data-oriented sibling tools like tock_search_restaurants and tock_get_availability.

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 provides an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative diagnostic tools.

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

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral default ('only metros with bookable venues are returned'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or what 'bookable' means, so it stays at a baseline acceptable level.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the resource and output fields, while the second provides the key downstream relationship and default filtering behavior. Everything present 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns, the default behavior, and how to proceed with the result. Parameter details are covered fully by the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters (limit, query, country, include_empty) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List Tock cities/metros') and enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, business count, country/state). It also differentiates from the sibling tool by pointing to tock_search_restaurants as the downstream consumer of a metro slug.

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 clearly guides the agent to use the returned metro slug with tock_search_restaurants, establishing the tool's role in the workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly does not repeat that. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the authentication requirement (browser tab signed in via fetchproxy) and the specific fields returned. It does not contradict annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior, but that is covered in the schema for limit/offset. Given annotation coverage, this is strong.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the primary action and resource, then lists the returned data and the critical prerequisite. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally sized for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields (venue, date/time, party size, experience) and the authentication prerequisite. The pagination parameters are documented in the schema. The openWorldHint annotation suggests the environment may change, which is not contradicted. No critical missing information prevents correct invocation. A small gap is not describing the response format, but that is partially addressed by listing fields. Overall adequate.

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 100%, meaning all three parameters (limit, offset, status) already have descriptions. The tool description adds nothing new about parameter semantics. Baseline is 3, which is appropriate since the schema carries the full load and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('the signed-in user's Tock reservations'), and the scope (upcoming, past, or canceled) plus the data returned (venue, date/time, party size, experience). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on metros, restaurants, or availability, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 when to use it: to fetch the user's own reservations, which is distinct from sibling tools like tock_search_restaurants or tock_get_availability. It also gives a concrete prerequisite ('Requires a browser tab signed in to exploretock.com via the fetchproxy extension'), which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., tock_verify_reservation for a single reservation), but the context is clear enough.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it specifies the returned venue fields (cuisine, price band, neighborhood, Tock slug) and the negative constraint that bookable slots are not included. It does not discuss pagination edge cases, but the schema covers limit.

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 with no wasted words; the main action is front-loaded, the required input and optional behavior are stated next, and the important negative constraint about bookable slots is placed last. Every sentence contributes useful routing or behavioral information.

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 simple search/list tool with one required parameter and clear annotations, the description is complete: it tells the caller where to get the metro value, what inputs are optional, what fields are returned, what the output is NOT, and how to chain the result into related sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the return shape is described sufficiently.

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 100%, so the schema handles parameter meaning well. The description still adds value by explaining that the metro slug comes from tock_list_metros, giving an example value, and characterizing query as an optional text filter. This is slightly more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List / search restaurants in a Tock metro.' It also draws clear contrast with siblings by noting it returns Tock slugs to use with tock_get_restaurant/tock_get_availability and explicitly excludes bookable slots, so an agent can distinguish it from availability or reservation 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 explicitly says to pass a metro slug from tock_list_metros, making the dependency on a sibling concrete. It also tells the agent what to do with the returned slugs and warns that bookable slots are not included, which positively routes the agent to the correct alternative for availability.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the exact lists re-queried, the three possible verdicts, the required user-facing phrasing for not_found, and the prerequisite of a signed-in browser tab with the fetchproxy extension. This materially helps the agent interpret outcomes correctly.

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 are tightly organized: purpose first, usage trigger second, outcome semantics and prerequisites after. There is no filler, and critical caveats earn their 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 compensates by enumerating the return verdicts and their user-facing meaning. The prerequisite, lag handling via bookedMinutesAgo in the schema, and search scope are all covered sufficiently to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already defines date, venue, partySize, and bookedMinutesAgo including the lag caveat. The description adds context about verdict semantics but not additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening verb 'Verify' names a concrete action on a specific resource ('Tock reservation') and explains the mechanism ('re-querying the account's own reservation lists'). It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the explicit verdict rather than list output, so an agent can distinguish it from tock_list_reservations.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this after ANY booking attempt', and reinforces that UI success is not proof. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer tock_list_reservations, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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