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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral detail absent from structured fields: results carry a ranking_explain field, feedback contains raw signals without total scores, and Amap/Tencent coordinates require coord_system=gcj02. However it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the query is read-only.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter semantics and a short return-format note. Dense but well-organized with no redundant sentences, though the parameter run-on is somewhat cramped for 13 arguments.

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 and no output schema, the description covers many facets and hints at return fields, but five parameters (city, cuisine, district, limit, offset) remain undefined, and pagination behavior is not explained at all.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for q, lat/lng+radius_m, coord_system (gcj02 values), price_min/price_max (per-capita in yuan) and open_now, but leaves city, cuisine, district, limit and offset completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Opens with a clear verb+resource ('搜索餐厅' / search restaurants) and immediately enumerates the facets that can be filtered. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ask_restaurants', which is likely the key ambiguity an agent must resolve.

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 description explains how to fill in individual parameters but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ask_restaurants or get_restaurant. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are given, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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