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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial beyond them: provenance (written by the venue, not scraped), price semantics as authored rather than quotation, null-price behavior, empty-section behavior, exclusion of age-restricted items, and a mandatory attribution display. That is rich behavioral context well above the annotation bar.

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 with the core definition, then layered behavioral rules that each earn their place — no filler. It runs long, but every sentence carries an operational constraint rather than restating the tool name.

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 carries the full return-value burden and does so: sections, price object shape (formatted amount, currency code, integer minor units), price: null, and the note field for unpublished menus, plus attribution requirements.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents place_id and its provenance. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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: reading the venue's own published menu, grouped by the venue's sections and order, covering dishes/treatments/tours. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like place_details or get_reviews.

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 strong in-context guidance on result handling (free tier, empty sections means no menu published, never quote prices), but never explicitly names an alternative or states when to prefer get_menu over place_details. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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