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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that fetching goes through a rendering residential proxy, that each successful call costs $0.02 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, that failed calls are not charged, and that each page yields roughly 48-50 results across pages 1-10. The cost/failure-charging and page-cap details are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the resource and the returned fields, then packs operational constraints (pagination, path, proxy, price) into short clauses with no filler. The field enumeration is long but each item is discriminative for a guide lookup; only the return-field list slightly overlaps the output schema.

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 paid, proxied scraping endpoint this covers the essentials: request shape, pagination ceiling, per-page volume, cost and payment rails. With an output schema present, the return-field list is redundant rather than necessary, and behavior on empty/invalid slugs or rate limiting is unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by showing the URL path template, which clarifies how region, city and locale combine into a request rather than leaving each as an isolated slug. It does not explain edge cases such as slug mismatches or whether locale changes the result set, so it stops short of 5.

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 resource (MICHELIN Guide restaurants) with an explicit scope (one region + city) and enumerates the returned attributes, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. No sibling tool covers restaurant guide data, so differentiation is trivially satisfied.

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 implies usage via the path format ('as in guide.michelin.com/us/en/<region>/<city>/restaurants') and the page 1-10 bound, which constrains how to call it. But it never says when to choose this over an alternative source or what to do if a city/region returns nothing; usage is inferred, not stated.

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