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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description contributes one genuine behavioral detail — that coverage is limited to countries 'JumunCheck covers' — but says nothing about language fallback, coverage gaps, or data freshness beyond what the schema states.

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 sentence with no filler, and the country-facet framing leads. The long comma-delimited field list is dense but each item conveys a distinct returned attribute, so little could be cut without losing routing value.

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 simple two-parameter read-only reference lookup with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of telling the agent what fields the response will contain. It is effectively complete for invocation; only inter-sibling differentiation against jumuncheck_get_guide is left unaddressed.

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 both params (lang, country) are fully documented, including the omit-for-all-countries behavior and the English fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates the exact content the tool returns (currency, sales tax inclusion, service charge, cover charge, tipping, tap water, drinking age, portions, visitor tips), which clearly separates it from jumuncheck_list_dishes and jumuncheck_list_places. It is phrased as a content inventory rather than an action ('How a restaurant bill works...'), so the verb is only implied by the name/title, keeping it 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?

Usage is only implied by the subject matter: an agent can infer this is the reference to consult for country-level bill etiquette. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of how this differs from the sibling jumuncheck_get_guide, and no statement about the no-country case (that exists only in the schema).

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