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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the scoping detail that this operates on the registry or prior search hits, which is useful, but it does not explain how criteria combine or what the response contains, partly mitigated by an output schema.

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 definition is a single sentence with no filler, and the key operating concept is front-loaded. The 'structured /grep' phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy but does not waste space.

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 7-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions, this one-liner is too thin. It does not explain what 'registry' means, how to chain it with search results, how criteria interact, or what values the filter fields accept. The read-only annotations and output schema reduce the risk, but correct invocation still relies heavily on guessing.

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 0% and the description compensates only marginally. 'Subset of prior search hits' hints at restaurant_ids, but the other six parameters are left to their names, with no value formats or allowed semantics specified.

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 says this is a 'structured /grep filter' and names its operating scope: 'registry or subset of prior search hits.' Combined with the tool name and annotation title 'Filter restaurants,' an agent can tell it filters existing restaurant data rather than searching broadly, though the exact meaning of 'registry' is left implicit.

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 gives a clear usage context: apply this when you need to filter the full registry or already-obtained search results. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_restaurants or state when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5.

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