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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavioral context: results are ordered nearest-first, scope is limited to Deenwise partners in the UK, and halal filtering reflects a certificate Deenwise has actually checked. It does not disclose result caps or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and ordering constraint first and the optional filters after. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

For a 3-parameter, fully documented, read-only discovery tool, this covers resource, geography, ordering, and filter semantics. With no output schema present, a brief note on what each result contains (name, address, distance) or a result limit would make it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains area formats, halal, and query. The description's only meaningful addition is the interaction of area with nearest-first ordering; otherwise it restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (Deenwise partner restaurants and takeaways), geographic scope (near a UK postcode or town), and ordering (nearest first). An agent can distinguish this discovery search from restaurant_menu, which serves detail for a single venue. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'near a UK postcode or town' — the agent infers this is the discovery entry point when a location is known. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., restaurant_menu for details on an already-selected venue).

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