opentable_status

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 states it returns login status and instructions if not authenticated, which conveys the tool's behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects, which is a minor gap for a status/check tool.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful usage instruction without unnecessary filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple status check with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. It could add more detail about the exact return format or next steps, but it adequately covers the tool's operation.

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 is empty (0 parameters) and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not miss any parameter info.

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 states 'Check if the user is logged in to OpenTable,' which clearly identifies a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opentable_login and opentable_logout, which perform different actions.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call this before any other OpenTable operations,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not discuss when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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