zomato_restaurant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the data 'public' and reveals the upstream relationship to the menu tool, but it stops short of stating read-only semantics, idempotence, or any caveats around invalid/canonical URLs. For a read-style detail tool 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?

Two dense sentences: the main purpose and scope are front-loaded, the field list is exhaustive without fluff, and the final sentence earns its place by clarifying the difference with a sibling. Every clause adds value.

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?

Given the single canonical-URL parameter, the absence of an output schema, and the lack of annotations, the description does a very good job: it lists the returned fields and clarifies the source. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly state whether fields can be absent (e.g., price or photos) or what an invalid URL yields, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 there is a single url parameter already documented with its provenance ('from /zomato/search's url field'). The tool description repeats the 'canonical URL' idea but adds no new format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a crisp verb and resource ('Get one Zomato restaurant's detail') and enumerates the exact returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it will receive. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling zomato_restaurant_menu with the phrase 'just without the menu items'.

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 provides clear context: this is the dedicated restaurant-detail tool, and the URL comes from /zomato/search. It contrasts with zomato_restaurant_menu, implying you'd pick that tool when menu items are required. That's not as explicit as naming the alternative in an if-then way, so a 5 isn't justified.

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