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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that results are eligible locales with address and published hours, and that dish/price appear only when available. The explicit limitation 'No devuelve cartas completas' provides a behavioral boundary not present in annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the three query dimensions, followed by return contents and a limitation. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of schema details.

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 specifies the key returned fields—address, published hours, dish, and price—and an explicit non-goal of full menus. It does not describe query combination behavior or default behavior when no parameter is provided, but the core invocation guidance is sufficient for a four-parameter optional tool.

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 baseline applies. The description maps natural-language examples to dish, cuisine, and name parameters but adds little beyond the schema. It reinforces the conditional presence of dish/price but does not clarify parameter combinations or limit 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: resolves a concrete gastronomic need in Alicante by dish, cuisine, or place name. The output contract—address, published hours, dish/price, and no full menus—clearly separates it from generic siblings 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?

The description frames when to use it: a specific food-related need in Alicante, such as a dish, cuisine, or named local. It also gives a clear exclusion—'No devuelve cartas completas'—so agents know not to use it for full menus, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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