opentable_check_availability

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 only states the basic function and adds no behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or returns nearby time slots. The schema does mention 'Availability is shown for nearby times,' but the description itself provides no transparency beyond the core purpose.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or repetition, every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderately simple with four parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description implies the output (available time slots) but does not explicitly state the return format or any edge-case behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but could benefit from mentioning what the response contains or typical use scenarios.

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 provides full descriptions (100% coverage) for all four parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It redundantly mentions date and party size but omits time and restaurantId. Since the schema already documents the parameters clearly, the description adds no significant semantic value, but the schema coverage keeps this at baseline 3.

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 action ('Check'), the resource ('available reservation time slots'), and the context ('for a restaurant on a specific date and party size'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opentable_make_reservation or opentable_search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 intended use case (checking availability before booking) is implied by the description and the sibling tool set, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The context makes it fairly obvious, but the description itself offers no direct instruction.

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