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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool searches every menu item across all restaurants, groups by dish, and returns price, description, dietary labels, and place URL. It also notes the effect of omitting the query. However, it does not address authentication, rate limits, or how 'neighborhood' is determined, leaving some gaps.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains how it works with a concrete example. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return content (price, description, dietary labels, place URL) and the effect of omitting the query. Minor missing details like sorting order or result limits (beyond the 'limit' parameter) are acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (limit, query) with 100% coverage. The description adds practical context: it explains that 'query' can be a dish name or part thereof, gives an example ('feijoada'), and clarifies that omitting it lists top dishes. This adds meaningful usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find which restaurants serve a dish in this neighborhood.' It specifies the verb (find), resource (restaurants serving a dish), and scope (across all restaurants, grouped by dish). The example 'feijoada' and distinction from sibling tools like 'get_restaurant_menus' and 'search_places' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly guides when to use the tool: 'Use this for any "where can I eat X" question.' It also explains the behavior when 'query' is omitted (list most-served dishes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the context of sibling tools provides some differentiation.

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