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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds modest value by indicating the return content is plans + prices + per-plan inclusions, but says nothing about currency, price freshness, or whether the list is fixed per region.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key scope constraint (one region, per-plan inclusions) is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it omits any routing or output-shape context.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and is constrained by a well-documented enum. It is missing any guidance on alternatives and any note on what 'prices' means (currency, per-seat vs per-month), which matters for an agent interpreting the result.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is documented in detail with region definitions and a cross-tool hint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes 'one region' without adding format or selection meaning beyond that.

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 resource (Foodly's plans and prices) and scopes it to 'one region, with what each plan includes', which tells an agent this returns per-plan pricing plus inclusions. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like get_foodly_overview, which could plausibly also mention plans and prices.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint in the whole definition ('Use find_foodly_region to map a country') lives in the schema for the region parameter, not in the description, so the description itself does nothing to help an agent choose between this and the other four Foodly tools.

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