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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the field list (address, geo, cuisine, hours, reservation channel, diet, slope access, level, sources with dates and licence) is a genuinely valuable disclosure of what a call yields, but nothing is said about behavior when a slug does not match.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and then the input, with the return payload listed at the end. The return-field list is dense and slightly run-on but every item conveys real information.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the input format, and the returned fields, which is close to sufficient. Missing only failure/empty-result behavior, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning; it does name the parameter and give two concrete slug examples, which clarify the identifier format. It does not state that the slug comes from search_restaurants results, leaving that link 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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (one restaurant record) and makes the singular-record scope explicit, which separates it from search_restaurants. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_hotel or get_entity, though the resource names make the difference inferable.

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?

'Use after search_restaurants' gives a clear ordered workflow: find candidates with the search tool, then fetch full detail here. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of what to do when a slug is unknown, so it stops short of the top band.

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