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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost none of that work. It does not state that this is a read-only, non-mutating search, does not explain pagination behavior via limit/offset, and says nothing about result volume or ordering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the filtering condition before the English restatement. The bilingual duplication conveys no new information but is defensible for a mixed-language audience, so the cost is minor.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 54% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits pagination semantics, keyword-search behavior, coordinate-system implications for the geo params, and any indication of what a result contains.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 54% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming the filter axes (district, cuisine, price, distance, open now), which maps onto district, cuisine, price_min/price_max, lat/lng/radius_m, and open_now. It adds no detail on the undocumented q, city, limit, offset, or coord_system params, and does not clarify that lat/lng/radius_m must be used together for distance filtering.

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+resource (filtered restaurant search) and enumerates the filter dimensions it supports (district, cuisine, price, distance, open now), so the purpose is unambiguous. It fails to distinguish itself from the sibling ask_restaurants, which also concerns restaurant discovery, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states the condition under which to use the tool ('when filtering by district, cuisine, price, distance, open now'), which is real usage context. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never names ask_restaurants or get_restaurant as the alternative for conversational or single-lookup cases, leaving the agent to guess which sibling to pick.

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