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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'ranked venues with a dimhour.com link for each' and clarifies the catalog is curated across all 20 cities. This goes beyond just repeating 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 main purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence contributes.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: what it searches (curated catalog, 20 cities), what it returns (ranked venues with links), and when to use it (food/drink questions by various facets). No major gaps.

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% – the 'query' parameter has a description with examples. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Dim Hour's curated restaurant, bar and venue catalog'), and adds scope details ('across all 20 cities'). It clearly differentiates itself from the broad sibling 'search_venues' by emphasizing 'curated' catalog and providing a dimhour.com link, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings like 'search_venues'.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use for questions about where to eat or drink — by cuisine, dish, neighborhood, city, vibe, or award.' This is explicit and helpful, but it does not mention when not to use the tool or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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