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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by naming the evidence source (liquor license and permit filings) and detailing an auth-dependent behavioral difference: the public tier returns every filing with block-level addresses, no owner contacts, and a link to each venue's page. That tiering is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of covering rate limits or result ordering.

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 front-loaded sentences: what it does, what it returns, then the credential-tier caveat. The final sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends effort describing the return shape (opening window, owner, evidence trail) and the reduced public-tier payload. The remaining gap is operational detail around the limit and status filters rather than anything structural.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does: 'metro' is implicitly explained and the pre-opening lifecycle hints at the status stages. It says nothing about 'limit' (default 20, pagination implications) or what distinguishes 'new', 'in_buildout', 'approved' and 'opened' as filters.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search upcoming restaurant/bar openings in a metro') and discloses the underlying data source ('pre-opening signals from liquor license & permit filings'). It is clear enough to separate from the only sibling, metro_stats, by implication (this returns individual venues, that presumably returns aggregates), but it never names the sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 is implied by the scope statement ('in a metro') and by the API-key prerequisite, which tells the agent what to expect with and without credentials. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus metro_stats, no guidance on choosing status stages, and no stated exclusions.

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