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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses fuzzy matching behavior ('closest matching items with match scores'), a concrete price of $0.002 USDC, and the notable billing exception that nothing is charged when there is no match. It stops short of covering result-count limits, ranking order, or whether an unmatched lookup still returns anything.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the cost caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs (output content, matching behavior, price, refund condition) with 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe the return shape (closest matches with match scores) and adds cost and billing behavior. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the number of results returned and behavior for ambiguous restaurant names are left open.

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%, with both parameters documented and exemplified, so the baseline is 3. The description's example ('Chipotle chicken burrito bowl') only illustrates how the two fields combine and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: retrieves calories, protein, carbs and fat for a named menu item at a named restaurant, reinforced with a concrete example. The scope (requires both a restaurant and an item) implicitly separates it from broader lookups, but it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling find_items, which likely covers similar ground.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for nutrition of a known item at a known chain. There is no explicit when-to-use versus find_items, get_restaurant_menu, or search_restaurants, and no statement about prerequisites such as needing a restaurant resolved first.

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