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 contributes the mandatory-filter constraint, which is genuine added context, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what 'upstream order' means in practice.

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 no filler; the required-filter constraint follows the enumeration and is the last thing read before invoking.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description captures the one non-obvious operational rule (at least one filter), though it omits the default-20/max-50 result cap that matters for a search tool.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including sort options and the appear_in_store_results flag. The description names only five of the filter fields and adds no syntax or format 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 (KFC restaurants) and enumerates the filter dimensions the tool accepts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from kfc_nearby (location-radius search) and kfc_store (single-store lookup), but never names those siblings, so an agent infers the distinction rather than reads it.

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 'at least one filter is required' is a hard precondition, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over kfc_nearby or kfc_store, and no indication of what happens with zero filters beyond the constraint.

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