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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: free-text matching covers names, tags, review prose and guide blurbs; known-closed venues are excluded by default; coverage is limited to NYC metro within 30 km; and an empty query returns highest-rated venues. These details go well beyond the annotation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: action and primary use case come first, followed by matching behavior, return fields, default filtering, coverage, and no-query behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description compensates well by stating return fields, default exclusions, coverage boundaries, and degenerate-query behavior. The input schema covers parameter constraints, so the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by clarifying that free text matches 'names, tags, review prose and guide blurbs' and by grouping location-related parameters as 'optionally near a point.' This enriches the query semantics without needing to repeat every parameter.

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 searches restaurants by multiple criteria and differentiates it from lookup-by-name tools by saying it is for when the user 'describes what they want... rather than naming a specific restaurant.' It also specifies the return contents (rating, price tier, address, tags), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use instruction with concrete examples ('Italian date night in the West Village', 'ramen near me') and an implicit exclusion for named-restaurant queries. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool for that case, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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