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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral semantics beyond that: matching is a case-insensitive substring on dish names, which tells the agent partial queries like 'pizza' will match 'pepperoni pizza slice'. It stops short of describing result ordering, default limit, or pagination.

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 tight sentences with no filler. Scope is front-loaded and the matching rule follows immediately, so nothing needs to be re-read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any signal separating this from filter_dishes and any note on default result count or ordering for a tool with a limit parameter.

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 75% (date, hall, and query are documented; limit is not), so the schema carries most of the load and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds match semantics for query and reinforces hall scoping, but says nothing about date or limit behavior that would compensate for the remaining gap.

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 verb and resource ('Search dish names') plus scope ('across the dining halls, or within one hall'), so the agent knows exactly what is being queried. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling filter_dishes, which is the tool an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'or within one hall' phrasing hints that the hall parameter narrows scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of filter_dishes or get_menu as alternatives. An agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.

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