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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: passing a date/time makes the call return the nearest available times, not just a static shop list. It stops short of describing the overall result shape or any result cap.

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 front-loaded sentences with the location requirement first and the refinements second. The 'Optional:' enumeration mildly duplicates what the schema already lists for the same five parameters, costing a little density but nothing confusing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns — it covers only the availability-times case and is silent on what a shop result contains and on behavior when city/postal_code are omitted (all six params are optional). Adequate but leaves real agent questions unanswered.

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 every parameter (city, date, time, query, fulfillment, postal_code) is already documented with format and examples in the schema. The description paraphrases query, fulfillment, and date/time without adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Find Lenius takeaway restaurants and shops') plus the required locator (Danish city or postal code). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_menu, place_order, and available_times, which operate on a shop once known.

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 frames query, fulfillment, and date/time as optional refinements and hints that supplying date/time triggers availability checking, but it never states when to prefer this tool over the sibling available_times, nor what happens if no city/postal_code is supplied. Usage is implied, not prescribed.

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