find_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the cost ($0.001 per call), payment mechanism (USDC over x402 to x402-tablebook), and what it returns (merchant's artifact and payment receipt). This goes beyond typical list tools by disclosing the payment side effect, which is crucial for an agent to understand before invoking.

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 long. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second covers cost, payment, and return values. It is front-loaded, with no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned (merchant's artifact and payment receipt). It also discloses the cost and payment rail, which is essential context for a paid tool. However, it does not clarify the structure of the merchant's artifact or the exact behavior of the 'days' parameter (though the schema covers it), leaving some minor ambiguity.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all 4 parameters, and the description does not add additional meaning or examples. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high (100%), a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description only reiterates 'date and party size' from the purpose, adding no new semantic detail.

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: 'List open restaurant reservation slots for a date and party size.' This specifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('restaurant reservation slots'), and the key parameters. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'book_table' tool, which presumably handles reservations.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to find open reservation slots for a date and party size. It provides the context (date, party size) and distinguishes itself from booking tools by focusing on listing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose is clear from the first sentence.

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