resy_availability

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 does disclose that each slot includes a bookToken, which is useful output context, but it omits whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits or pagination. For a listing tool, this is acceptable but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a critical detail about the output (bookToken). Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only somewhat complete. It explains the core purpose and the bookToken output, but does not describe the full return structure (e.g., time, venue info) or the optional latitude/longitude parameters. This makes it partially insufficient for a complex tool.

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 only 40% (venueId and date have descriptions), and the description does not compensate for the undocumented latitude, longitude, or partySize parameters. It only mentions 'date' and 'party size' generically without adding syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states it lists available reservation slots for a Resy venue on a specific date for a party size. It also mentions the bookToken included in each slot, which is used by resy_booking_preview, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like resy_search and resy_book.

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 a usage flow: after finding a venue via resy_search, use this tool to get slots, then pass the bookToken to resy_booking_preview. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the workflow is clear enough from the mention of resy_booking_preview.

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