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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: what each match includes (price, short description, photo URL, listed allergens) and the categorical exclusion of custom cakes, which changes how an agent interprets results.

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, no filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the exclusion routed to the sibling in the second sentence. Every clause 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?

Complete for a small two-parameter read tool: the action, scope, result contents, and the custom-cake exclusion are all present, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed. Minor gap is that the lane parameter isn't echoed in prose, though the schema fully documents it.

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 the schema by giving concrete example query terms (filling, pastry, 'vegan', 'ube'), which sharpens how to construct the free-text query and complements the enum-documented lane parameter.

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) and resource (menu items) plus the scope: today's counter menu and catering. It explicitly names the sibling cake_options as out of scope, so an agent can distinguish it from cake_options and get_menu without opening a schema.

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 clear context ('a few words – a filling, a pastry, vegan, ube') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('Custom cakes are not in it; they are designed with cake_options'). It doesn't contrast against get_menu or show_item, but the routing to the key sibling is explicit.

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