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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that output is structured comparison data. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected given the read-only annotation; the description meaningfully supplements the annotation by revealing result shape.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output format, followed by a clear usage example. Every sentence contributes value and there is no 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 lacking an output schema, the description lists the key returned fields (rating, price, tags, review summary) and the schema fully documents parameters. It is adequate for correct invocation, though it could briefly mention sibling alternatives for non-comparison queries.

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% description coverage for both parameters. The description reinforces the '2–3' cardinality and 'named restaurants' expectation, but adds little beyond the schema's property descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compare 2–3 named restaurants head-to-head' and lists the output dimensions (rating, price, tags, review summary). It also clearly identifies the triggering scenario, distinguishing it from generic restaurant search or retrieval tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the user asks to choose between specific places', with a concrete example. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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