opentable_get_restaurant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output includes description, address, hours, and features, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool requires authentication (likely, given sibling tools include login/logout), whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits or potential errors. The description is too thin on behavioral context beyond the basic data fields.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately listing what's included. No fluff, easy to parse.

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 param, no output schema), but with no annotations, the description should compensate. It fails to mention authentication requirements (given sibling tools for login/logout), whether the operation is read-only, or if the restaurantId might be a URL vs an ID, which could affect invocation. The description covers the basics but lacks critical contextual details for a real-world API 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?

The only parameter, restaurantId, is fully documented in the schema (says it's the restaurant ID or profile URL from search results). The description adds no extra parameter-related meaning beyond confirming the scope. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; no additional value provided by the description.

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 retrieves detailed information about a restaurant, listing specific data types (description, address, hours, features). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like opentable_search (which likely returns summaries) by focusing on detailed information for a specific restaurant, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 it should be used when detailed info is needed after identifying a restaurant via search (since restaurantId comes 'from search results'). It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear: use this for specific restaurant details, not for listing/searching.

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