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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing a content boundary the annotations cannot convey: pricing and priced menu documents are deliberately not returned, which prevents an agent from misusing this tool for price questions. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the resource and its returned fields, the second immediately states the exclusion. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description effectively substitutes for one by listing the fields returned and the fields omitted. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing; only minor operational details like pagination are absent, and those are unlikely to matter here.

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?

There is a single required parameter (slug) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description adds nothing about the slug or its format, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves the baseline score.

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 resource precisely (restaurants and bars at a resort) and enumerates the attributes returned (cuisine, style, setting, dress code, signature dishes), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_spas or list_villas, but the resource noun is distinct enough to route correctly.

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 is only implied: fetch dining venues for a given resort slug. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling list tools. The one genuine scoping rule — pricing and priced menu documents are excluded — is helpful but is framed as content exclusion rather than tool-selection guidance.

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