tock_verify_reservation

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds rich behavioral details: the exact verdict values ('confirmed', 'cancelled', 'not_found'), the reporting mandate for 'not_found' ('attempted, unverified'), and the fetchproxy sign-in requirement. These go well beyond the structured metadata.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence contributes essential information—usage trigger, return values, reporting rule, and prerequisites—with no redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the return verdicts and their meanings. It also covers the required browser environment and the critical reporting behavior, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret 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 schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with clear descriptions (date, venue, partySize, bookedMinutesAgo). The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb 'Verify' and a clear resource ('a Tock reservation'), then explains the method (re-querying reservation lists) and the explicit verdicts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tock_list_reservations or tock_get_availability by focusing on verification with a pass/fail outcome.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('after ANY booking attempt') and even explains why a success screen is insufficient, plus the prerequisite login requirement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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