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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the visibility restriction to opted-in venues, timezone-local isOpenNow evaluation, the >1440 close_minute rollover rule, and explicit null conventions ("null = not declared, never 'no'"). The channel_states and verification-state semantics further prevent misreading of ambiguous values.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded, and the density is partly justified because there is no output schema. However, the core content is delivered as one sprawling run-on enumeration of fields; the important caveats (timezone isOpenNow, null semantics, visibility) are buried mid-sentence rather than separated, which hurts scannability.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description does most of the work: it documents the return shape, the null conventions, and the visibility precondition. It stops short of saying what happens on an unknown, suspended, or non-opted-in slug (error vs. empty result), which is the remaining gap.

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% with a single required slug parameter whose example is already in the schema. The description restates "by slug" but adds no new parameter-level meaning such as format constraints or slug resolution behavior when a venue has moved or been suspended. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource with scope: "Fetch a public restaurant profile by slug." The enumerated contents (profile fields, policies, derived channels, graph node) make it clearly distinct from siblings like get_restaurant_menu, list_public_menus, and search_restaurants, and the closing note limits it to directory-opted restaurants.

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: the profile-by-slug framing and the "public directory only" constraint signal a single-venue lookup, but no explicit routing guidance is given (e.g. use get_restaurant_menu for dishes, search_restaurants to find a slug). An agent must infer alternatives from sibling names rather than from the description.

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