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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable constraints by specifying returned fields (address, published hours, dish/price when available) and explicitly stating 'No devuelve cartas completas'. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured hints and contradicts nothing.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, follow with the return contract, and close with an explicit non-return. No filler.

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 still communicates the essential return fields and the main boundary. It does not explain parameter combinations or empty-result behavior, but the openWorldHint and parameter descriptions cover much of the remaining context.

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%, so the structured parameters carry most of the semantic weight. The description reinforces dish, cuisine, and name with examples but adds little beyond the schema, and limit is not mentioned in prose.

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 concrete purpose: resolving a gastronomic need in Alicante by dish, cuisine, or place name. It is clear about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like find_place or search_alicante.

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 concrete query examples ('un plato, una cocina o un local por nombre') and the exclusion of full menus. However, it never states when not to use this tool or names an alternative, so the agent must infer the boundary against siblings.

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