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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description does add valuable non-annotation context: ranking is by relevance and proximity, the call is anonymous with no sign-in required, and results may render as cards under MCP Apps. These are real behavioral disclosures beyond the structured hints.

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 what the tool does, then location guidance, then return/sibling routing, then the anonymity and read-only notes. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still notes the card rendering form. With 7 parameters fully documented in the schema and the description covering priority ordering and sibling handoff, nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the priority order for location resolution (lat/long > area/address derivation > server default) and why location matters (proximity ranking), which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb (search) and resource (restaurants/stores) with geographic scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_merchant_products by defining the handoff relationship via merchant_id, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening the schemas.

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?

Explicitly states to pass latitude/longitude when known, to derive location from area/address otherwise, and that a configured default applies as a last resort. It also gives the concrete next-step routing: use the returned merchant_id with search_merchant_products to open a menu.

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