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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description still discloses non-obvious behavior: short-notice ranking demotes places that book out weeks ahead and annotates each with a reason. It also discloses a result limitation (no hours or neighborhoods) that the agent otherwise could not predict. It stops short of noting the limit cap or result ordering details.

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?

Scope, then the date/party_size behavior, then exclusions, then the follow-up tool — a well front-loaded sequence with no filler. The sentences are long and clause-heavy, so some density cost, but each one carries distinct 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?

For a read-only search with four params and no output schema, the description covers what the results contain (vibe tags, booking guidance, short-notice reads), what they omit, and how to use the ids. Minor gaps are the undocumented limit parameter and no sense of result count or ordering.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining what date and party_size actually change (short-notice re-ranking), which the schema's bare 'Date of the meal' does not convey. limit remains undocumented in both places, and 'party of two or more' slightly conflicts with the schema's minimum of 1.

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 the specific resource (critic-agreed restaurants from Michelin, Eater 38, The Infatuation) and its scope (US city, any meal, party of 2+) in the first sentence. It is clearly distinguishable from get_restaurant (single lookup) and find_warm_destinations (travel search), and it caps off with what the results carry: vibe tags and booking info.

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 an explicit triggering condition for optional params ('For a meal in the next week (tonight, this weekend), pass date and party_size'), states exclusions ('Results don't include hours or neighborhoods: for lunch, brunch or a specific area, check those with a maps or places tool'), and routes the output onward ('Use the returned ids with create_restaurant_vote').

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