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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-domain profile is covered. The description adds useful result-content context (ratings, fees, ETAs, cuisines, coordinates) but says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limits beyond what the schema carries.

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 with zero filler; the search scope and return-content summary come first. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with six parameters.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate, with the only real gap being routing guidance against sibling tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents all six parameters including page, page_size, search, order_method and the required coordinates. The description only paraphrases 'by location' and 'optional keyword', adding no 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 (search) and resource (Grubhub restaurants) scoped by location with an optional keyword. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like grubhub_restaurant or grubhub_restaurant_menu beyond being the search entry point.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name an alternative such as grubhub_restaurant for fetching a single restaurant's detail. An agent must infer the search-vs-detail split from the tool names alone.

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