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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it returns page body text similar to fetch but in a different format. It does not specify what that format is, which is a notable omission for a deprecated alias, but annotations carry most of the safety burden.

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 first sentence is an unexplained reference to a restaurant name, which is confusing and front-loads non-informational content. The key fact (legacy alias, use fetch instead) appears later. It is not verbose but is poorly organized.

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 deprecated alias, the description adequately covers the replacement path and basic behavior. It omits the return format difference from fetch, which matters if an agent must handle this tool's output, but that gap is narrow.

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 schema fully documents the single 'url' parameter including the Japanese path allowance. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema baseline.

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 identifies this as a legacy alias of the 'fetch' functionality, which is its core purpose. However, it does not state plainly what the tool does at the start – the first clause is an opaque note about a business name. The agent must read to the end to learn it returns page body content.

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?

Explicitly names the replacement tool ('fetch') and instructs new users to use it, while explaining why the alias persists. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance that helps an agent route correctly.

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