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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It usefully adds that results carry curator attribution, rank, guide, a quote, and a link, which compensates for the missing output schema. It says nothing about result counts, pagination, or rate limits beyond the schema's limit field.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by how to query and what comes back. No filler; the result-fields sentence earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 six-parameter, all-optional search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input modes, and return shape. Remaining minor gaps (pagination/count behavior, interaction with limit) are not critical for correct invocation.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces the query parameter by giving examples ('greasy spoon shoreditch', 'pie and mash', 'dim sum') and explains combining query with coordinates, but adds no meaning for creator, limit, or radius_km beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search restaurants, cafés and bars recommended by food curators on Goodtimes') and makes the scope unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as get_place or who_recommends, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The description gives positive usage guidance ('Give words ... and/or coordinates to search nearby'), which implies the two search modes. It never states when to prefer this over get_place, who_recommends, or get_guide, and names no alternatives or exclusions.

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