opentable_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns URL and instructions) and user authentication, but does not mention side effects, state changes, or how the URL is consumed. This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then condition. No filler or redundant details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned (URL and instructions) and when to use it. Could specify return format more explicitly, but the essential context is present.

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, so the empty schema covers everything. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description implies no input required. It does not introduce any separate parameter semantics, which is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get the OpenTable login URL and instructions') and the resource (OpenTable authentication). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the trigger condition 'when opentable_status returns not logged in.'

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 provides a usage condition referencing opentable_status, and the alternative (when already logged in) is implicitly clear. This is actionable guidance for when to invoke the tool.

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