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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, but that is largely duplicated by the output schema, and it says nothing about rate limits, market scoping behavior, or freshness that would add real behavioral value.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the payload fields with zero filler. Efficient and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and read-only annotations cover the safety profile. The description gives enough for a read-only detail lookup keyed by a search-derived code, with only minor gaps around market/region selection.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (code source, market default, lat/long purpose). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 by code') and enumerates the data returned (address, coordinates, budget tier, rating, cuisines, availability), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like foodpanda_restaurant_menu or foodpanda_restaurant_reviews, keeping it below a 5.

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?

'By code' implies the caller already holds a restaurant code (the schema confirms it comes from a search response), so use-after-search is inferable. However, there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no routing to sibling tools (menu, reviews, search), leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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