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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds non-obvious output semantics: coverage_level 'full' rows have letter grades, 'basic' rows use preliminary_band with grade null and are based on review analysis, and 'none' rows have no analysis. This warns agents about nulls and data quality without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct useful information: purpose, return contents, field semantics, coverage caveats, ID acquisition, and selection guidance. The detail on coverage is dense but organized and directly relevant, with no filler.

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?

With a good output schema and strong annotations, the description's added context covers prerequisite ID discovery, data-availability edge cases through coverage_level, and the appropriate scope vs siblings. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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% and enum values are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying fields/coverage levels to data availability ('fully analyzed restaurants only') and by instructing where restaurant_id comes from, which lifts it above schema-only documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a specific restaurant by its Seemor ID,' and enumerates the returned details. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to search_restaurants/find_restaurant first and by noting it is for a single place, not for every recommend result.

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 the tool (single restaurant by known ID), what to do first (use search_restaurants or find_restaurant to get IDs), and when not to use it ('not for every result of recommend'). It also explains when fields=standard/premium is appropriate via the 'fully analyzed restaurants only' qualifier.

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