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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the search covers all restaurants, groups results by dish, and returns price, description, dietary labels, and place URL. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the information is sufficient for an agent.

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 and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure (restaurants with price, description, dietary labels, place URL). It covers both use cases (with and without query), making it complete for a search tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing examples ('feijoada', 'pizza margherita') and explaining the effect of omitting query (list top dishes). This goes 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 action (search), resource (dishes), and grouping (by dish). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_places and get_restaurant_menus by being dish-centric.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for any "where can I eat X" question.' It also explains the behavior when query is omitted (list top dishes). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use, the context and sibling names make it clear.

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