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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additional behavioral signal is that results are restricted to published restaurants, which is useful but thin for a tool with pagination and fallback matching semantics.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-sized for an 8-parameter tool, but nothing in it is redundant or wasted.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits pagination/cursor behavior, that all filters are optional, and how results are ordered by default. The schema carries most of this, but the description leaves an agent without a holistic picture of how to invoke the tool end-to-end.

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 already explains q, sort defaults, cursor reuse, and slug sources. The description only groups those parameters into 'text, place and category' and adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (published restaurants) and the three facet dimensions (text, place, category) that map to the q/city/category parameters. It is clearly a search tool distinct from get_listing, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling, 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?

No statement of when to use this versus list_places, list_categories, or get_listing, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'published' hints at scope, but the agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point and that other tools are for lookup of known items.

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