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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope: it enumerates what the payload contains (menu items, prices, hours, cuisines, rating) and states market defaults to sg, which the annotations do not provide. It could say more about freshness/caching or availability semantics but is solid for a read tool with an output schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the tool's function before the routing guidance. Everything earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the description supplies purpose, routing, and payload scope, which is close to complete. Minor gap: no mention of whether the menu is location/market-sensitive beyond the default, which could matter for an open-world commerce 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the source of `code` from a search response and the market enum list. The description only repeats that `code` and `market` are used, adding no format or constraint beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one restaurant's categorized menu items) with explicit payload (prices, opening hours, cuisines, rating) and the two required identifiers. It is clearly distinguishable from foodpanda_restaurant (details) and foodpanda_search (finding restaurants), which it 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?

Explicitly names three alternatives and the condition that selects each: use foodpanda_search to find restaurants, foodpanda_restaurant for details, foodpanda_restaurant_reviews for reviews. An agent can route without opening any schema.

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