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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explains a critical result-interpretation behavior: each result names its certifying agency or is marked "unknown," never "not kosher." That prevents an agent from treating missing certification data as a negative kashrus judgment.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded and structured: it opens with purpose and scope, then usage examples, filters, certification semantics, and exclusions. The Hebrew terms and example queries earn their place for retrieval, and the final "Read-only" is a minor redundancy rather than a structural flaw.

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?

Given the 12-parameter schema, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description supplies the context an agent needs: scope, alternatives, filter meanings, and the crucial unknown-certification caveat. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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?

With 58% schema description coverage, the description adds useful meaning for several parameters, including lat/lng with radius, location, open_now, hashgacha, food_status, and standards. However, it does not cover every schema parameter, notably limit and category, so it compensates well but not completely.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Find kosher restaurants, Jewish places, shops and institutions near a location." It also scopes the tool to New York City and names sibling alternatives, so an agent can distinguish it from verify_kosher, recommend_food, find_services, and search_events.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool with example queries such as "kosher sushi in Brooklyn" and "certified bakeries in Crown Heights." It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance, directing detailed kashrus checks to verify_kosher, dishes to recommend_food, services to find_services, and events to search_events.

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