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

Annotations already declare it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: fully vegan places are ranked first, and dietary labels are read from menus with an explicit allergy-confirmation caveat. It does not describe pagination or limit behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical needs semantics and the city-slug prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the only enum values mean, how limit affects results, or what a returned place record contains, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 50%, and the description reinforces the important one-dish rule for needs while pointing city slugs to list_cities. However, it leaves the only and limit parameters unexplained in both the schema and the description, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear resource (diet-friendly places in a city) and an ordering rule (fully vegan first), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not differentiate from siblings such as place_vegan_options or search_places, leaving ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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?

It gives useful prerequisite guidance for the city parameter (slugs come from list_cities) and explains how needs must be applied jointly. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of search_places or place_vegan_options, and gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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