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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral trait that restaurant_id and entity_id are aliases and either one is accepted, which is not derivable from annotations and is critical for correct invocation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the critical alias clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no nested objects, this is nearly complete. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description handles the parameter relationship. Minor gaps remain: no output schema means return format, timezone handling, and not-found behavior are unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does by resolving the core ambiguity: the two parameters are aliases. Without this, an agent might pass both or not know they are interchangeable. It doesn't specify ID format, but that is a minor gap given minLength is the only schema constraint.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('opening hours for a restaurant'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It differentiates well from sibling tools like get_restaurant, get_menu, and get_services, which target different resources.

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 context is implied by the purpose: an agent should call this when it needs opening hours for a restaurant. The alias note ('pass either') provides useful invocation guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus-alternatives statement or exclusion naming siblings like get_restaurant.

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