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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it is a non-content mutation that only refreshes confirmation time, and it is restricted to maintainer roles. It does not explain the agent_key credential or what happens on repeated/unauthorized calls, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core behavior and then the field vocabulary and the sibling routing. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler.

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?

For a 3-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, authorization scope, effect on data, and alternative routing. The only meaningful omission is the agent_key parameter's meaning, which an agent may need before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does decode the 'fields' enum (hours/price/menu), which the bare string-array schema does not, but store_id is left implicit and agent_key is entirely unexplained despite likely being an auth credential.

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 verb (confirm) and resource (restaurant info), plus the exact effect: refreshes only the confirmation timestamp without changing content. This makes it clearly distinct from update_restaurant (which edits content) and from submit_feedback (which diners use).

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?

Explicitly names who should call it (maintainers: publishers, editors, claimers) and who should not, routing diners to submit_feedback's 'confirmed' path instead. Both the when and the when-not are stated, with the alternative named.

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