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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that dietary_tags are ANDed ('Require ALL') and allergens are exclusionary ('Exclude items declaring any'), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or the meaning of next_cursor, though the schema covers cursor mechanics. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence with zero waste. The core action and filtering dimensions are front-loaded, and the prerequisite call is appended as a clear directive. Every word 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?

For a read-only search tool with a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and annotations declaring safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that results are paginated or that cursor should be used for subsequent pages, but the schema's cursor description covers this. The prerequisite guidance and filter semantics make it fully actionable.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the key semantic that dietary_tags are ANDed and allergens are exclusionary, which is valuable. But it does not add meaning for query, limit, cursor, or city beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a specific resource ('a named venue's menu'), and the three filtering dimensions (text, dietary tags, allergens). It also names the prerequisite sibling (venue_dietary_options), which distinguishes it from search_menus and other venue tools. This is a clear, non-tautological definition.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call venue_dietary_options first for exact spellings, which is a concrete when-to-use directive. It also implies this tool is for menu-specific searches as opposed to the broader search_menus or search_venues siblings. The guidance is actionable and leaves little to inference.

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