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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and externality are covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results include the health grade/rating inline and carry an `id` used for chaining, which tells the agent this is a read that hands off state. It omits result sizing/pagination behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 zero filler: the capability and the returned fields come first, followed by the chaining instruction. Nothing is repeated from the title or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must sketch the return value, and it does (matching establishments, grade/rating, `id`). Combined with a fully documented 5-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the result-count defaults and pagination limits are left to the schema.

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 100%, including enum expansions for `city` and fuzzy-matching notes for `name`, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces that lookup is name-based and never mentions city, address, zip_code, or limit, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Find restaurants by name") plus the payload returned ("current health grade / rating"), which is exactly what distinguishes it from get_inspection_history. An agent can tell it is the lookup/entry-point tool rather than the history tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: search first, then pass the returned `id` to get_inspection_history. That gives clear when-to-use context and a named follow-up. It does not say when not to use it or when rating_systems would be the better call for interpreting grades, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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