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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses matching rules (case-insensitive, every word must match) and result format (up to 15 items with prices and diet markers). It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but the search operation is inherently clear.

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?

The description is a single tight sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core search behavior and matching semantics. It packs purpose, matching rules, and return shape efficiently.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description explains both matching behavior and what is returned (up to 15 items with prices and diet markers). Minor details like sort order or empty-result behavior are omitted but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter is already well documented with examples. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by specifying matching against name or description and the all-words-must-match rule.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search menu items by name or description. It distinguishes itself from browsing the full menu through the search/filter semantics, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like 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?

The search-by-name-or-description phrasing implies when to use it, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_menu or get_specials. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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