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 real value beyond that by disclosing the result ordering ('strongest halal evidence first') and the freshness of the data ('today's hours and whether each is open now'), which tells the agent how results are ranked and that hours may be stale outside today.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource type and following with ranking and freshness details an agent needs. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 steps in to describe ordering and per-result hours/open status, which covers the main return-shape question. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior when limit is hit and how evidence ranking is computed, but nothing blocking for a simple read 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 description coverage is 100%, with city, kind enum, limit and open_now all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'in a city' and 'open now' phrasing echoes what the schema already states and adds no format or edge-case detail such as how city paths resolve.

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 resource and scope: halal restaurants, markets and butchers within a city, ranked by halal evidence strength. Clear enough that an agent knows what it returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling is_chain_halal, which also concerns halal verification.

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 required city parameter and the kind/open_now filters, so an agent can infer a city-scoped browse. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of find_city for resolving city paths or of is_chain_halal for single-chain checks.

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