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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the fixed count of 12 questions, that each question exposes its accepted answer values, and that money ranges, delivery apps and review sites are localized to the restaurant's country.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the localization caveat. Nothing repeats the title or schema verbatim for its own sake.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description still usefully previews the payload (12 questions plus accepted values). Combined with a single optional, fully documented parameter and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only an explicit link to the sibling workflow is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema does not: it enumerates which parts of the content localize (money ranges, delivery apps, review sites) rather than just saying 'currency and local wording', which clarifies the practical effect of the country 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?

The description names a specific verb (lists) and a precise resource (the 12 multiple-choice questions of the free restaurant profit check), and even states what each item contains (accepted answer values). The scope is clearly a read/retrieval operation, which implicitly separates it from the sibling restaurantdoctor_run_free_check, though that sibling is never named.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the step that fetches the question set (likely before submitting answers via run_free_check). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the alternative tool, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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