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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent with it. Beyond that, the description adds genuine behavioral context: results are 'strictly rating-ordered' and there is no free-text query support. It doesn't describe output format or pagination, but with the safety profile already annotated, the added ordering semantics justify a 4.

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 with zero filler: core purpose first, then when-to-use, then sibling contrast. Each sentence carries a distinct load, and the differentiating trait ('strictly rating-ordered') closes the paragraph.

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 11 parameters the tool is complex, but 100% schema coverage and the readOnlyHint annotation offload most of the burden. The description covers purpose, selection, and key filters; its notable gap is that the filter summary omits the proximity-search capability (lat/lng/radius_km) that the schema supports. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing, but the filter list is partial.

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 groups the key filters ('cuisine, neighbourhood and price'), which marginally orients the agent, but it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema — it doesn't explain the lat/lng proximity mode or min_rating semantics, which remain the schema's job.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair — 'List the highest-rated restaurants' — and pins the rating scale (Infatuation 0–10). It then differentiates from the closest sibling: 'Differs from search_restaurants: no free-text query, strictly rating-ordered.' An agent can tell the tools apart without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition — 'Use for "best in the city" requests' — and names the key alternative with the selecting criterion: search_restaurants for free-text queries, this tool for rating-ordered results. This matches the get_calls precedent of naming the alternative and the condition that chooses between them.

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