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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: the bounded closed dataset size (2,600+ brands / 4,300+ branches) and the facets searchable by the query. It does not describe result ordering or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and dataset scope, followed by the disambiguation sentence. The Arabic sentence largely restates the English one for the target audience rather than adding new content, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

One required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain returns. It covers scope, facets and the sibling alternative; only result ordering/pagination behavior is unspecified, which is minor for a search tool.

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 the query parameter already carries an exemplar list, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the single query matches name OR cuisine OR dish, clarifying that the agent should pass a free-text term rather than a structured identifier — a small but real addition.

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 (find/search) plus resource (restaurants and meals) and narrows scope to Saudi cities, with concrete corpus size (2,600+ brands, 4,300+ branches). It also names the searchable facets (name, cuisine, dish), which separates it cleanly from get_restaurant_menu and compare_prices.

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 routes the agent to an alternative: 'للقائمة الكاملة بالأسعار استعمل get_restaurant_menu' — for the full price list use get_restaurant_menu. This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and what to use instead, which is exactly the sibling-selection guidance required.

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