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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the guide is curated and opinionated, absence means not on the list (not nonexistent), empty results are honest answers not errors, and free text in `q` is resolved to the guide's own vocabulary with the response reporting the interpretation. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps an agent set expectations and avoid hallucinating 'no restaurants there'.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and the most important behavioral caveat (absence ≠ nonexistence) before moving to usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly long and could be broken into two paragraphs for scannability. The key information is all present and ordered well.

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 17-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of covering the essential context: what the guide is, how to interpret empty results, how `q` resolution works, and when to use the tool. It doesn't explain pagination (cursor) or the exact meaning of all filter combinations, but the schema covers parameter details and the description covers the conceptual model. The main gap is that it doesn't mention the response shape or that results are ranked, but the description's job is not to duplicate schema details.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the philosophy of `q` (resolved to the guide's own vocabulary, interpretation reported) and the meaning of absence in results. It also clarifies that `area` belongs to one city and `city` scopes areas/ranking, which is not fully explicit in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 ('the Max Eats Out guide'), and immediately distinguishes it from a generic places database. It names the editorial point of view and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by saying when not to use it (nearest branch of a chain). This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for this when someone wants a recommendation with an opinion attached, or wants to filter by editorial qualities...' and explicit when-not-to-use: 'Do not reach for it to find the nearest branch of a chain.' It also names the alternative implicitly by contrasting with a general places database, and the sibling list (get_city, get_venue, list_cities) reinforces the context. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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