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 search scope ('every menu item across all restaurants'), grouping behavior, return fields (price, description, dietary labels, place URL), and conditional behavior when query is omitted. It does not cover rate limits, errors, or pagination, but offers substantial transparency.

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 three sentences each serving a clear purpose: purpose, example/details, and usage instruction. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description provides essential context: output fields, default behavior, and a usage pattern. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but for a search tool with clear examples, this is adequate. Sibling context suggests this fills a unique niche.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete query example and explaining the effect of omitting the query, which goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('which restaurants serve a dish'), and further distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the site-wide menu search and grouping by dish. The example with 'feijoada' reinforces the purpose.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this for any "where can I eat X" question') and describes the behavior of omitting the query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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