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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description still adds real value: FX conversion, provenance, per-source ratings, and the notable behavior that unobservable-price venues are reported as a coverage gap rather than silently dropped. That is a non-obvious behavioral trait worth the credit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then the edge case. Slightly over-invested in enumerating return fields that an output schema already documents, but nothing is padding.

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 an output schema present, the return-value sentence is largely redundant, while the genuinely missing pieces — what the enum filters mean, how freshness_days defaults interact with coverage, and result limits — go unaddressed. Adequate, but the emphasis is misplaced for a 1-required/8-param 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 only 38%, so the description needs to compensate, and it largely does not: price_kinds, venue_types, min_review_count, min_rating_fraction, and limit get no explanation anywhere. Only the price ceiling concept is echoed ('by observed numeric price'), and the enum values themselves are undocumented.

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 ('Find restaurant venues in a city by observed numeric price') plus the qualifying constraint, which cleanly separates it from search_lodging, search_flights, and the compare_* siblings. An agent can pick it 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 price-filter framing implies when to use it, and the coverage-gap sentence hints at a limitation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as summarize_costs or compare_city_costs. Usage must be inferred.

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