resy_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: the search is limited to 'Resy's own venue index' and returns only venue IDs (not full restaurant details). However, it omits details like whether results are paginated, how latitude/longitude affect behavior, or the response structure. It is adequate for a simple search tool but not rich.

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, tight sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and follows with the key output and purpose. It earns a perfect score for efficiency.

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?

The tool is relatively simple: one required string and two optional numbers, no output schema, no annotations. The description explains the main purpose and output but leaves the optional parameters undefined and does not describe the return format beyond 'Resy venue ids.' Given the low schema coverage and lack of an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but it is minimally viable.

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 describes only the query parameter (33% coverage), and the description does not compensate for the missing latitude/longitude semantics. The description says 'by name/keyword,' reinforcing the query parameter, but latitude and longitude are left as bare numbers with no explanation of their role (e.g., disambiguation or location-based ranking). This is a notable gap given low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Search Resy's own venue index by name/keyword.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tock_search (a different platform's index) and discover_restaurants (discovery rather than direct venue lookup). The explicit mention that it returns venue IDs needed for downstream actions completes the purpose.

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 clear usage context: it is a precursor to availability and booking, saying 'Returns Resy venue ids needed for availability and booking.' This helps the agent select it before resy_availability or resy_book. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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