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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, total count, and program-specific rules (Saturday exclusion, Sunday variability). It also implies read-only behavior through the verb 'Search' but does not explicitly state side-effect-free operation. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the date/week resolution logic, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 information-dense yet concise. It front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers program details, filter combinability, exclusions, pagination, and a pointer to the detail tool. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. The structure is logical and easy to parse for an agent.

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 14-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational aspects: filters, pagination, program rules, and how to get further details. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or the exact response format, but these are less critical for a search tool. The confusing '0 restaurants' phrasing is a notable gap that could undermine the tool's perceived utility.

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 86% (high), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains price tiers, program dates, the semantics of the 'date' parameter (resolves to week and handles Saturday/Sunday rules), and provides examples for the query parameter. It also clarifies the 'sunday' and 'has_menu' boolean filters. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource: restaurants participating in NYC Restaurant Week Summer 2026. It distinguishes from get_restaurant by indicating that get_restaurant is for menus and links. However, the phrase '0 restaurants' is confusing and potentially misleading – it might be a placeholder or typo, but as written, it could mislead an agent into thinking there are no results.

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 strong usage context: it explains that all filters are optional and combinable, and it directs the agent to use get_restaurant for detailed information. It also covers program rules like Saturday exclusion and Sunday variability. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use check_date or list_filters, which are siblings, leaving some ambiguity about the full decision tree.

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