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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches every menu item, groups results by dish, and returns price, description, dietary labels, and place URL. It also explains the effect of omitting the query. Although it doesn't mention rate limits or auth, the behavioral traits are well-covered for a search tool.

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 concise with two sentences. It immediately states the main purpose in the first sentence, then elaborates on return structure and query omission behavior. No fluff or unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return structure (grouped by dish with price, description, dietary labels, place URL). With 2 parameters and simple behavior, the description is complete and covers all essential information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds value by providing example query values ('feijoada', 'pizza margherita') and explaining the behavior when query is omitted (lists top dishes). This enriches the parameter understanding 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 function: 'Find which restaurants serve a dish in this neighborhood.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (dishes across all restaurants), and provides an example with 'feijoada.' This distinguishes it from siblings like search_places (which searches broader places) and get_restaurant_menus (which returns a specific restaurant's menu).

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 states 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 top dishes). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools, but the context signals list siblings, and the guidance is clear enough.

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