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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the grouping and return fields (price, description, dietary labels, URL) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any rate limits. The absence of side effects is implied but not stated.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides a concrete example. No redundant information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (price, description, dietary labels, place URL). It covers both parameter scenarios (with and without query). For a search tool with 0 required params, this is complete.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value for the 'query' parameter with an example and the special behavior when omitted. For 'limit', the schema already covers defaults and max. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal extra semantics.

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 what the tool does: 'Find which restaurants serve a dish in this neighborhood.' It specifies the scope (every menu item, across all restaurants) and provides an example query. It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'search_places' by focusing on dishes and restaurants.

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 guidance: 'Use this for any "where can I eat X" question.' It explains behavior when query is omitted (lists top dishes). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context and phrasing provide good usage direction.

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