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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are user-saved from short-form video platforms, are 'verified', and include the dish to order. It omits return-volume and pagination behavior, which is a minor gap given the limit parameter's default of 8 and cap of 15.

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: the first front-loads the resource and data source, the second gives the usage hook. There is no filler, though the em-dash aside plus the provenance list makes the opening sentence dense enough to require a careful read.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so ('verified places with the dish to order'). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only result-count expectations are left unstated.

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 only 33%: 'craving' is documented in the schema, but 'city' and 'limit' have no schema descriptions. The description implies the city scoping ('in a city') and the dish-oriented nature of the query, which partially compensates, but it never mentions the limit parameter or its 1–15 range and default, leaving that meaning to the schema alone.

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 concrete resource set (restaurants, cafés and bars in a city) and its provenance (places saved from TikTok, Instagram and YouTube food videos on GeoTok), so an agent knows exactly what kind of result comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like find_things_to_do, but the food/venue domain makes the distinction inferable.

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 quoted example 'where should I eat in X' gives a clear triggering context for when to call this tool. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to alternative sibling tools for adjacent needs (activities, hotels, flights), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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