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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to published venues, and each result carries its venue so an agent can rank venues. No contradiction exists between the description and 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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then specifies filters and the output purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant detail; every clause 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?

With detailed input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential scoping ('all published venues') and the key output behavior (venue-tagged results), though a brief note about pagination or an explicit pointer to venue_menu_search for single-venue searches would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes query, city, dietary_tags, and allergens in plain language but does not add meaning substantially beyond the schema's existing per-parameter descriptions. Pagination parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 the action ('Search menu items'), the resource ('across all published venues'), and the key filters (text, city, dietary tags, allergens). The phrase 'each result tagged with its venue' further explains what the tool returns and distinguishes it from venue-scoped siblings like venue_menu_search.

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 communicates a clear usage context: cross-venue menu search for ranking venues in one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the 'across all published venues' scope gives a strong contextual distinction from single-venue menu search.

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