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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it reports current takeout availability, hours, and JPYC discount acceptance, though it does not describe error behavior or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently states the action and the three checks performed.

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?

For a simple read-only one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and the information reported. However, it leaves the only parameter undocumented and provides no output shape, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The sole parameter 'shop' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies it identifies a MARU Order restaurant. It does not clarify whether 'shop' expects a name, ID, or other format, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Check') and resource ('MARU Order restaurant') plus the three status aspects it reports: current takeout availability, hours, and JPYC discount acceptance. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as check_availability, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The purpose implies when to use it—checking a restaurant's current takeout status, hours, and JPYC discount—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like check_availability or get_menu.

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