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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned data shape (a flat fact sheet), and 'get' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about how the restaurant is identified with zero parameters, what happens if no restaurant context exists, or whether missing fields are omitted or nulled.

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 content is front-loaded and short, but the entire field list is duplicated verbatim in Russian and English, so roughly half the text is redundant rather than additive. A single bilingual sentence or one language would carry the same information.

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 must convey return content – and it does, listing eight facet categories. However, for a zero-argument tool it omits the critical detail of how the target restaurant is resolved (ambient context, configured tenant, etc.), which is the one thing an agent cannot infer from the 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?

The schema takes no parameters at all, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description rightly spends no effort on argument explanation and instead describes what the parameterless call yields.

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 names a specific verb+resource (get_restaurant_info) and enumerates the exact facets returned: address, metro, phone, website, cuisine, features, rating, links. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like get_hours and get_menu, but it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is only implied through the field list – an agent can infer this is the general-purpose profile tool, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_hours, get_menu, or get_banquets_and_events, nor any prerequisites for calling it.

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