opentable_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns login status and instructions if not authenticated, indicating a read-only check with conditional output. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it has no side effects or that it doesn't perform authentication itself, though that is implied. It provides useful context about the return value.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, the return value, and the usage context in two sentences. No unnecessary words, and it effectively communicates the essential information.

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 description is adequate for a simple status check with no parameterslint: It explains what it does and when to call itborn. However, it doesn't specify the exact structure of the 'login status' or what 'instructions' might include, but given the simplicity, it's reasonably complete. A 4 is appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters)Skip

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 function: checking if the user is logged in to OpenTable. It specifies a direct action (check) on a specific resource (login status), and distinguishes itself from sibling login/logout tools by focusing on status rather than performing the action. It also mentions the return of login status and instructions, which clarifies the primary output.

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 explicitly instructs to call this before any other OpenTable operations, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It implies it should be the first step, which differentiates it from the other tools and sets a precondition. Though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the directive 'before any other' is sufficiently explicit.

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