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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default (unfiltered) response shape lists dietary tags, example dishes and allergen counts, and it discloses that a venue may simply not publish a menu. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, which the cursor param implies.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and example, with no filler. The middle clause ('unfiltered, item lists its dietary tags, example dishes and allergen counts') is compressed to the point of being slightly telegraphic, costing a point.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers filters, the unfiltered default, and the unavailable-data case. The main residual gap is that it never distinguishes this from search_menus, leaving the agent to infer which lookup surface to choose.

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 and the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates the filter set and shows example values for venue/dietary_tags/allergens, which is mildly reinforcing but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find dishes at a named venue') and immediately grounds it with a concrete example call, which separates it from the cross-venue search_menus sibling. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a worked usage example and enumerates the filter axes (text, tags, allergens, max_price), plus a fallback path when data is unavailable ('check the capabilities venue_profile lists'). It does not explicitly contrast with search_menus or say when a broader search is preferable, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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