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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: forgiving name matching (case, '&' vs 'and', typos) and a didYouMean fallback when nothing matches closely. It also discloses the payload contents (supported services, open-now status, weekly hours, city and countryCode).

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filters, then matching behavior, then return contents. Slightly dense in the last two sentences but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly (services, hours, open status, locality). Combined with zero required params and full annotation coverage, nothing material 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 75% and the description reinforces the fuzzy-match semantics of query and explains why countryCode matters (venue names repeat across countries). Only limit is left to the schema, so it adds real meaning above the field descriptions.

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 (WaitApp venues: restaurants, hotels, lodges) with the filter axes (name, city, country). It also scopes the tool against siblings by noting it is the one that resolves venue identity before a venue id is used elsewhere.

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?

Gives clear usage context: empty query lists venues, and the tool is positioned as the identity-resolution step before other venue-id tools. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to use when a venue id is already known.

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