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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the directory is 'curated' and deliberately non-exhaustive, with some real working Zomato city slugs absent, which warns the agent not to treat empty results as proof a city is unsupported. No output-format detail is given, but an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded before the workflow-role detail, and the closing caveat is a short, high-value sentence. The middle sentence is colon-and-slash dense and runs long, but every clause carries real information about downstream consumers.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and safety annotations already in place, the description covers purpose, workflow routing, and a meaningful completeness limitation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 100% and the single q parameter already documents case-insensitive substring matching against name or slug with 'omit to list all'. The description's phrase 'optionally filtered by a name/slug substring' restates the schema, so this is the baseline 3 – adequate, but no syntax or format value beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific resource (curated directory of major cities) scoped to Zomato India and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact tools that consume its output (zomato_search/zomato_restaurant/zomato_restaurant_menu/zomato_collections/zomato_collection). An agent can tell what it does and where it sits in the workflow without opening any schema.

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 frames the tool as 'the discovery source for the city value' that downstream tools take, which tells the agent when to reach for it. It also flags that the list is not exhaustive. There is no competing sibling to route away from, and no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the completeness caveat, so it lands just 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.