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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: cuisine ids are location- and market-scoped rather than a fixed global enum, and each entry carries a live restaurant count. It does not mention staleness or caching, keeping it at a 4.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and its linkage to foodpanda_search are front-loaded, and the scoping caveat follows as a compact second sentence.

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 fully described, yet the description still states what each entry contains (id/name/slug plus live count). Combined with the location/market-scoping note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already documents latitude, longitude, and market. The description reinforces the location/market scoping of the returned ids but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for a fully documented parameter set.

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 resource (the live cuisine filter catalog) and ties it directly to a consumer: the cuisine_id parameter of foodpanda_search. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining its role as a lookup feeder rather than a search tool, so an agent knows it is not the same as foodpanda_search.

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 description effectively tells the agent when to use it: to obtain the valid cuisine_id/name/slug values that foodpanda_search accepts at a location. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives to avoid, so it stops short of a 5.

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