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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the data covers places in Austria (consistent with the closed-world hint), results include which venues serve the dish along with price, diet and allergens, and free-text terms for diets/allergens/cuisines are silently promoted to filters. No pagination or rate-limit behavior is mentioned, but limit/offset live in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the outcome ('Find a dish or drink... which places serve it, at what price, with diet and allergens') followed by the input contract. No filler. The location clause partially duplicates the schema's lat/lon/bbox descriptions, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope (Austria) and query phrasing. All 15 parameters are documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing. It could be more complete by routing the agent away from sibling search tools, but for a 15-param optional-argument search this is adequate.

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 every one of the 15 parameters carries a substantive description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the headline inputs (q, lat/lon, bbox) without adding format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: find a dish or drink on menus, returning which places serve it with price, diet and allergens, scoped to Austria. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of differentiating from siblings such as search_lunch_menus or search_venues, so an agent must infer the boundary between menu-item search and venue search.

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 tells the agent how to phrase the query (plain words, German or English) and gives three location modes: a point, a bbox, or neither for everywhere. That is genuine call-shaping guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over search_lunch_menus, search_venues or get_venue, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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