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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the role requirement, the need to confirm with the user, and the lack of an update path. These are meaningful behavioral details. It does not elaborate on the idempotent behavior hinted by annotations, but it does not contradict them either.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important signal ('ADMIN'), followed by the core action, sibling relationship, update limitation, role, and confirmation requirement. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant 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?

Given that the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all essential operational context: admin scope, target school, purpose, role, confirmation, and update limitations. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to invoke this tool safely.

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 input schema already documents every parameter clearly. The description adds only indirect context about the 'active school' default for school_slug. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage without adding much parameter-specific value.

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 and resource ('Adds a restaurant to the active school') and explains the downstream purpose via create_restaurant_menu_item. It also clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_restaurant_menu_item by targeting restaurants rather than menu items.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is ADMIN-only, requires the pac_cordinator role, is a WRITE operation requiring user confirmation, and notes that no update tool exists so changes mean recreating or managing in the Paxaver admin. It also implicitly routes the agent to create_restaurant_menu_item for the next step.

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