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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: each item contains a description, resolved venue ids/page URLs, a citation page, and editorial ranking. It does not contradict annotations.

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 resource and then add the output shape and ranking. The '(read-only)' parenthetical is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but harmless.

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 read-only content lookup with all-optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the result subject, item fields, and ranking behavior. It does not explain how city/country/query interact or when to select this tool over sibling content tools, which prevents a 5.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the city, limit, query, and country parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning and only loosely maps to the region/city/country filtering, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: regional signature wines and the producer to visit, plus the item shape and ranking. It lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list' and does not differentiate from siblings, and the tool name 'dishes' sits awkwardly against the wine-focused description.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling tools are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'Signature wines of a region,' leaving the agent to infer when this is the right tool versus experiences, place, or search_places.

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