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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned content but does not state that the tool is read-only, static, requires no auth, or how fresh the data is. For a zero-parameter info tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed by a compact usage cue. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter static-info tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates what will be returned and when to use it. Nothing further is required to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter-like expectations.

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 the specific resource (Sole Mio Kitchen & Bar) and enumerates the exact facts returned: address, phone, email, website, cuisine, features, rating, and key links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hours and get_menu.

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?

It gives an explicit usage cue: "Use for 'where is it / how do I contact them'." However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as directing users to get_hours or get_menu for those specific needs.

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