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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantial behavior: free text matches names, tags, review prose and guide blurbs; results are compact and include rating, price tier, address_line and tags; known-closed venues are excluded by default; city coverage is specified; and an empty query returns highest-rated venues. This is rich, non-obvious context that annotations do not provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary use case and is dense rather than bloated. Almost every sentence adds operational value, though the NYC coverage detail is repeated in both the description and the city parameter's schema description, which is minor redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return fields, the guide_appearance_count distinction, default exclusions, geographic coverage, and default limit/radius behavior via the schema. For a search tool with 13 parameters, an agent has enough context to select it, populate it, and interpret results correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all 13 parameters at 100% coverage, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining how 'query' behaves (matches review prose and guide blurbs) and what happens with no query or filters (returns highest-rated venues). This lifts it above the baseline.

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 and resource ('Search restaurants...') and clearly differentiates it from siblings: it handles free-text or filter-driven queries ('Italian date night in the West Village') rather than named restaurants, which is get_restaurant's role. It also names the sort and filter dimensions, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 gives explicit use guidance: 'Use when the user describes what they want... rather than naming a specific restaurant.' It also distinguishes search results from get_restaurant's guide_appearances, which helps route between siblings. It does not enumerate every alternative or explicitly say when not to use it, but the stated context is clear enough.

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