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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and an output schema exists, so the description's job is smaller. It still adds real value by disclosing that hours/capability embeds are NOT included, which tells the agent what data to expect from the response.

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 short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the differentiating caveat second. No wasted words, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 a complete output schema and read-only annotations, the description only needs to establish identity and scope, which it does. The one gap is that it doesn't clarify the relationship to chipotle_restaurant_menu / chipotle_restaurant_meals siblings.

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% and the schema already documents restaurant_number with a format example (e.g. 3982). The description only restates 'by restaurant number' without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('restaurant detail') and the lookup key ('by restaurant number'), which cleanly separates it from the list-style chipotle_restaurants. It does not name the sibling explicitly, referring to it as 'the proximity search', but an agent can still distinguish the two.

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 clause 'Leaner than the proximity search' implies the trade-off (use this when you already have a number and don't need hours/capability), but there is no explicit 'use this when / use the other when' routing statement. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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