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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar for extra value is lower. The description adds meaningful context: 'indicative availability' (not guaranteed), no reservation placement, and direct user booking. This goes beyond the annotation flags to clarify actual limitations.

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?

Two sentences deliver full scope, behavior, and usage guidance with zero redundancy. The most important constraint (PLANNING ONLY) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 planning-only search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, what it returns ('restaurant details and indicative availability'), and how it should be used. Minor missing details like result pagination or ordering are not critical for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 29%, so the description must compensate. It lists all seven parameters, which is helpful, but it does not explain their semantic meaning beyond the names. The schema already covers date/time format and price range enum, but party_size and cuisine are left implicit.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource pair ('Search restaurants and dining options') and enumerates searchable criteria, making it distinct from sibling tools like search_hotels or search_events. The scope is precise and immediately understood.

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 states when to use ('when the user wants to find, compare, or shortlist somewhere to eat') and provides a strong exclusion ('PLANNING ONLY', 'does not place reservations', 'user completes any booking directly'). It does not name an alternative tool, but the contrast between planning and booking is implicit and sufficient.

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