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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description goes far beyond them: it discloses the returned fields (address, phone, openState, provenance fields), the hoursText-vs-openState distinction, the seasonalCaution withholding rule (no openState computed outside a season window), operator-published closure wording, a result cap of 8 with a total count, and exclusion of permanently closed venues. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a search tool.

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?

Front-loaded correctly with the verb and scope, but it is heavily overwritten for a three-parameter search tool: the seasonalCaution passage repeats the withholding rule in several ways, and the '16 of Montauk's restaurants, 12 of its bars' statistics are illustrative padding. Much of the content is genuinely necessary, but the same rules could be delivered in substantially fewer sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does: result fields, provenance fields, the seasonalCaution/openState interaction, closure wording, and the 8-result cap with total match count. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the response correctly.

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 67% and the description adds real semantic meaning beyond it: it explains that query matches the fields each section keeps, not just venue names, with concrete examples ('pick-your-own' returns the farms running it, 'sorbet' the scoop shops that make it). It does not extend the town or category parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource and geographic scope ('Search the verified guide's venues across the Hamptons + North Fork') and enumerates the covered categories. It also distinguishes itself from a named sibling by routing permanent-closure lookups to recently_closed, so an agent can separate it from the other 18 tools without opening a 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?

Gives one explicit when-not/alternative: 'to ask about one by name, or to check a venue you are about to recommend from memory, use recently_closed instead.' Usage is otherwise implied by the category list rather than stated, and directly adjacent siblings like whats_open_now, find_shops and golden_hour are never mentioned, so there is no explicit routing rule among those.

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