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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds payload-scope context (whole menu plus this week's lunch with every price), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens with an unknown slug.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifying the key and the returned content; no filler. The nested dash clause listing food, drinks and lunch is slightly ornate but still earns its place by scoping the payload.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be restated, and the description correctly focuses on resource identity and payload breadth. The only material gap is routing guidance relative to the search siblings, which the annotations and schema cannot supply.

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%, and the schema itself explains both slug (source of the value) and lang (language of dish names). The description adds nothing about lang and only gestures at slug via 'by its slug', so it stays at the schema-driven 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?

States a specific resource and retrieval key ('a place by its slug') and enumerates the payload (address, phone, website, hours, full menu, prices). It is clearly a single-entity detail fetch and thus distinct from the search_* siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 slug-based fetch implies a two-step workflow after search_venues, but the description never states when to prefer this over the search siblings or what to do if the slug is unknown. Usage is left to inference from the required parameter.

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