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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the set of result fields (budget tier, rating, cuisines, delivery/pickup availability), which is useful context, but discloses no rate limits, auth needs, or pagination caveats beyond what the schema provides.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted preamble; the scope and market list come first and the sibling pointer is appended. The field enumeration is somewhat dense but still earns its place by signalling filterable attributes.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, yet it summarizes key fields and covers markets plus the cuisine_id dependency. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though it stays silent on pagination semantics for offset/limit.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real cross-tool pointer for cuisine_id resolution (foodpanda_search_cuisines) that the schema only gestures at generically, and reinforces the market code set. This goes slightly beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 ('restaurant search near a location'), enumerates the supported markets, and lists the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from the sibling foodpanda_search_cuisines it explicitly names.

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?

Gives clear context and routes the agent to foodpanda_search_cuisines for valid cuisine_id values, which is genuinely useful 'when to use the other tool' guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer it over foodpanda_restaurant or the other foodpanda siblings, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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