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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the 'curated sample' / 'not the complete review archive' completeness caveat, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, volume, or freshness of the reviews.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the crucial scope limitation, followed by routing guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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. Purpose, scope caveat, and sibling routing are all covered, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation missing.

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 both code and market are fully documented in the schema. The description references them by name but adds no format, sourcing, or default details beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 (curated sample of customer-review items embedded on one foodpanda restaurant page), and immediately scopes it by noting it is not the complete review archive. This lets an agent distinguish it from the archive-style review tools and other foodpanda siblings.

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 routes the agent: use foodpanda_search or foodpanda_restaurant to find a location, and foodpanda_restaurant_menu for priced items, implying this tool is only for reviews once a restaurant code is known. Both the condition and the alternatives are named.

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