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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return structure (time slots, discounts, covers) and indicates a read-only nature via the verb 'get'. It adds value by explaining the 'off-peak discount logic', but does not detail potential side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 plus a tagline, all essential. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then details output and logic. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the concept, input purpose, and output format. It could be enhanced by mentioning the typical use case sequence (e.g., use before booking), but overall it provides sufficient context given the simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both 'slug' and 'date' are described). The description enriches understanding by explaining that the tool adjusts discounts based on off-peak timing, which goes beyond the schema's technical definitions. It provides business context for the parameters.

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 it returns 'time-based offers for a restaurant' with off-peak discounts, and specifies the output: 'time slots with discount percentages and remaining covers'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'book_flow_reservation' (a booking action) and 'find_restaurants_near_landmark' (location search), as it focuses solely on offering details.

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 implies use when checking discounts ('Off-peak hours have bigger discounts'), but lacks explicit guidelines on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., before booking or comparing restaurants). No direct comparison with siblings or conditions for non-use.

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