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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the menu is live and bilingual, and results can be filtered by category and max price. It does not disclose return shape or pagination behavior, which is acceptable given the read-only annotations.

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 states the core action first and then tacks on the optional filters without redundancy. Every element (live, bilingual, search-by fields, filters) carries meaning; no filler.

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 read-only search with four well-documented params and no output schema, the description captures the tool's purpose and optional behavior adequately. It even notes the currency ('Toman') and the bilingual nature of the data. The only omission is the exact return fields, which is a minor gap 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?

Schema coverage is 100% – all four parameters have individual descriptions with examples and ranges. The description's mention of 'category' and 'maximum starting price in Toman' simply mirrors the schema, adding no new semantics. Baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource – 'Search Bashoor Cafe's live bilingual Persian/English menu' – and lists the search fields (item, description, category). The optional category and max-price filters round out the scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_menu, but the search framing sets it apart from a plain menu fetch.

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 implies this is the search entry point versus the full-menu sibling, but never explicitly says when to choose it over get_menu or get_business_profile. There are no exclusions or when-not notes. Usage context is only inferable from the verb 'Search' and the optional filters.

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