opentable_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells what the tool does (gets URL/instructions) and implies that the user performs authentication, but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or expected return structure. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the usage condition. Every word earns its place—no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact artifact (login URL and instructions) and when to use it, leaving little ambiguity. It could mention whether it returns anything in a specific format, but the description's clarity compensates for that as a simple 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.

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 gets the OpenTable login URL and instructions for the user to authenticate, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on login and explicitly referencing opentable_status as a precursor condition.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use this when opentable_status returns not logged in'), which gives clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the conditional is sufficient and directly connects to a sibling tool.

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