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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the returned fields (slug, name, city, country, menu URL) and by explaining the directory_opt_in semantic and its link to the 'AI visibility' owner setting.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the defining scope constraint. The parenthetical about directory_opt_in and 'AI visibility' earns its place by clarifying the filter, and nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, and it notes pagination, which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs. The only gap is that parameter behavior for page/limit is left entirely to the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters, yet it only says 'Paginated' without explaining page/limit behavior, defaults, or the 50-item cap. The defaults and min/max exist in the schema, but the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 ('List restaurants') and narrows scope precisely to those that opted into the public directory, quoting the underlying flag. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_restaurants, but the opt-in scope makes its distinct purpose inferable.

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 implied by the 'opted into the public directory' qualifier, so an agent can infer this is the unfiltered public-listing call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to search_restaurants or get_restaurant as alternatives.

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