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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the return value is a full schema.org Restaurant page and that the two IDs are aliases, but it does not disclose behavior such as not-found responses or what happens if both IDs are provided. This is adequate but not rich.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the alias clarification is directly useful. The internal 'E2-A /get slice' reference is slightly opaque but does not detract from conciseness.

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 read-only lookup with strong annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the return type and parameter alias behavior. It could briefly mention when not to use it or how invalid IDs are handled, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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. It does so meaningfully by clarifying that restaurant_id and entity_id are aliases and either can be passed, which resolves the central parameter ambiguity. It leaves some details implicit, such as value format and precedence when both are supplied, but the main relationship is made clear.

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 and resource: 'Return full schema.org Restaurant page.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from get_salon or get_entity by resource type. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 invocation guidance ('restaurant_id and entity_id are aliases; pass either') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_entity, get_details, or get_salon. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and 'Restaurant page.'

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