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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive content disclosure on top. Calling out 'open-now and special dates' is genuinely useful behavioral context, warning the agent that hours include computed, time-varying status rather than static strings. It does not mention what happens for an unknown or malformed restaurant_id, which is the remaining gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with no padding, and the most concrete fields (address, phone, hours) are front-loaded. It is grammatically a noun-phrase fragment rather than a statement of action, which slightly reduces clarity but wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so field by field, including the non-obvious 'open-now' and special-date behavior. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient; only failure behavior for an invalid ID is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents its origin ('returned by search_restaurants') plus a concrete example. The description contributes nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (address, phone, hours, cuisine, booking/order/voucher availability, links), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_menu or check_table_availability. It never states a verb such as 'retrieves' or 'gets', so the agent must infer from the name and title that this is a single-restaurant details lookup rather than a listing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named. Usage is only implied by the field inventory — an agent can infer 'call this when you need contact info, hours, or booking/order capability'. The only explicit routing hint (restaurant_id from search_restaurants) lives in the schema, not the description.

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