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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the coverage caveat: the list is small and hand-picked, and details can be out of date. That is genuine behavioral context an agent needs before trusting results. It stops short of stating how many results to expect or whether results are ordered.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs scope, field list, and a freshness caveat with minimal waste. The parenthetical list of fields is dense but readable and does real work since there is no output schema.

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 appropriately enumerates return fields and flags staleness, which covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Missing only marginal details such as result ordering or approximate list size.

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 100% and both parameters are documented, including the ISO code format and the pointer to jumuncheck_get_guide for the city slug. The description only echoes that city is optional, adding no format or filtering nuance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list restaurants) and bounds the scope to one country with an optional city. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as jumuncheck_get_guide, which only appears indirectly via the schema.

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 phrase 'a small hand-picked list' implies limited coverage and the closing caveat 'check before visiting' hints at verification needs, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is not an exhaustive search.

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