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 genuinely non-obvious behavior: only published kitchens, samples and search-hidden kitchens excluded, and a cap of up to 8 matching dishes per kitchen. It does not mention rate limits, ranking order, or cursor behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and filtering/exclusions in the second; there is no filler. The long enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given that an output schema exists, which costs it the top score.

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 annotations carrying safety and an output schema carrying return shape, the description covers the pieces that matter most: published-only scope, exclusion of hidden/sample kitchens, and the 8-dish cap. Pagination via cursor and result ordering are left unaddressed, but the schema documents the cursor, so nothing critical 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% and every filter is documented in-schema, down to the enum list and date format. The description restates which filters exist without adding syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the schema (e.g. how multiple dietary tags combine, or how query terms are weighted), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (finds) plus a precisely scoped resource: published Stovefront kitchens and the dishes they have open for ordering. It also states what is excluded (sample storefronts, hidden kitchens), which makes it distinguishable from get_menu, get_pickup_windows and build_order_link without opening the schema.

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 description makes the search/filter use case clear (keywords, dietary tags, pickup date, area), so usage is implied. But it never says when to prefer this over the siblings - e.g. that get_menu is the way to see a single kitchen's full menu or get_pickup_windows for timing detail.

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