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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add real behavioral content: filtering by open status (or missing hours), distance sorting, and enrichment with Google Maps and Uber Eats links. It omits radius semantics, result limits/pagination, and coordinate format, which are meaningful gaps for a query 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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and location scope before the output enrichment. It is efficiently sized and every clause contributes, though the packing makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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, and the description usefully discloses what comes back (distance-sorted results with map and Uber Eats links) plus the open-status filter. The only real hole is the undefined radius parameter and coordinate precision, which keeps it from being fully complete for a 4-param, 0%-schema-coverage 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to lat/lon (a coordinate) and category (food type) but never mentions the radius parameter, which is left totally undocumented in both schema and description. Three of four parameters gain semantics — partial compensation.

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 specific verb+resource (查找店家) and scopes it precisely: a coordinate in Taiwan, matching a food category, open status, sorted by distance, with Maps/Uber Eats links. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_food_categories (which only enumerates categories).

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?

Usage context is implied — find restaurants near a point — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and no sibling alternative is named (e.g., list_food_categories for primitives). The open-status clause hints at filtering intent but is not framed as guidance.

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