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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description does not repeat safety but adds value by detailing the response contents (editorial note, Best For, known for, how it works, pours, locations, links) and the canonical URL. It also gives a behavioral expectation (cite the URL). No contradictions; it enriches beyond the annotation.

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, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each clause adds useful information (what is returned, where slugs come from, how to use the result).

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned, how to obtain the input, and how to use the output. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%: the slug parameter already has a description ('Venue slug, from search_venues.'). The description repeats this and adds context about the slug's role, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 (Retrieve), a specific resource (full Max Eats Out entry), and the selection key (by slug). It enumerates the entry's contents, making it unmistakable what the tool returns, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like search_venues (which find slugs) and get_city/list_cities (which deal with cities).

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'Slugs come from search_venues', telling it to call search_venues first to obtain the slug. It also gives a downstream instruction (cite the canonical URL when recommending). It does not explicitly contrast with get_city/list_cities, but those are obviously different domains, so the guidance is sufficient.

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