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 little beyond restating filter dimensions and doesn't mention defaults, pagination behavior, or result limits beyond what the schema says.

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 that lists capabilities compactly. It is efficient, though the list-like phrasing reads as a feature dump rather than a prioritized guide.

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 13 optional parameters, full schema documentation, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the tool's identity adequately. It could be stronger by distinguishing this tool from its search siblings, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in detail, including bbox format, sort modes, and limits. The description's phrases ('open now', 'with a menu', 'serving lunch today') simply echo parameter names without adding meaning, making 3 the correct 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 what the tool searches over (places to eat and drink) and enumerates the searchable dimensions, which is clear enough to select it. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling search_dishes or search_lunch_menus, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated filters (by name, cuisine, map area, open now) but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_dishes or search_lunch_menus, nor any prerequisite or exclusion notes.

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