tock_verify_reservation

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

Annotations cover readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context: the verdict enum, the caveat that a not_found within minutes of booking is inconclusive rather than proof, and the hard prerequisite of a signed-in browser tab via the ContextMint Bridge. The auth requirement would be undiscoverable otherwise, so the description carries its own weight.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and verdict semantics come first, followed by the usage mandate, then the reporting rule and the prerequisite. No sentence is 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 still supplies the return contract by naming all three verdicts, states the auth prerequisite, and gives downstream reporting instructions for the inconclusive case. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly interpret this tool 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 (date, venue, partySize, bookedMinutesAgo) are documented in the schema itself, which already notes that bookedMinutesAgo drives the lag caveat. The description repeats that lag concept but adds no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource — verifying a Tock reservation by re-querying the account's own reservation lists — and explicitly enumerates the three verdict outcomes. This is clearly distinct from the tock_list_reservations sibling, which merely lists reservations without returning a verdict.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after ANY booking attempt') and why (a success screen or screenshot is not proof), and it also gives handling guidance for the not_found case ('report as attempted, unverified'). That is usable when/when-not guidance that pins down behavior well beyond the obvious.

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