snipe_reservation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automation and timing ('automatic booking attempt for the exact moment slots become available'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, success/failure behavior, or what happens after scheduling (e.g., confirmation, notifications). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by context. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what the tool returns, error handling) and does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters like 'release_time' and 'preferred_times'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Schedule an automatic booking attempt') and resource ('slots'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'make_reservation' by emphasizing automation for time-sensitive releases. It explicitly mentions the target scenario ('popular restaurants that release reservations at specific times'), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('for popular restaurants that release reservations at specific times'), which implicitly guides usage versus alternatives like 'make_reservation' for immediate bookings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, missing full explicit guidance.

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