opentable_make_reservation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains the confirmed booking vs preview distinction and explicitly requires the user to be logged in. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., unavailability) or the nature of the response after booking, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three short sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action, the preview/booking toggle, and the login requirement. There is no redundant or extraneous text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's side-effectful nature, the description could be more complete by explaining what the tool returns on success or failure. It covers the main workflow and login prerequisite but leaves the agent uncertain about response formats and exceptional cases.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all six parameters, including formats and semantics for date, time, partySize, restaurantId, confirm, and specialRequests. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already states; it only repeats the confirm flag's behavior, so it adds minimal value above the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Book' and identifies the resource as 'restaurant reservation on OpenTable', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also clarifies the confirm parameter's role in preview vs actual booking, which distinguishes it from related tools like availability checking or cancellation.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for booking or previewing a reservation, and notes the login requirement as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as opentable_check_availability or opentable_cancel_reservation, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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