Sign in to Tabelog

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses that this blocks/waits on a human, that credentials never reach the tool, and that the session persists in the local browser profile. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what happens if the user never completes login before the timeout.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the optionality warning so an agent stops reading early if it doesn't need the tool. Every sentence adds a distinct fact: optionality, alternative, mechanism, credential safety, session persistence.

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?

A one-parameter, no-output-schema tool is well covered: the agent knows it launches a browser, waits for a human, and leaves a persistent session. Only the timeout semantics and post-timeout state are unaddressed, which is minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter timeout_minutes has zero schema description coverage, and the description never names or explains it — no statement of what happens when the wait expires or whether the session is kept. The name and default/range in the schema make it inferable, so this is a gap rather than a failure.

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 concrete action (sign in) against a concrete resource (Tabelog) and describes the mechanism: opens the Chrome window on the login page and waits for the user. It also distinguishes itself from prepare_booking, which handles sign-in implicitly, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 marks itself as optional and says prepare_booking already signs in by itself when needed — a direct when-not-to-use rule plus a named alternative. That is the highest-value guidance an agent can get for a redundant-looking auth tool.

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