Search restaurants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: lat/lng preferred, address geocoding via OSM, no login needed for public search, and the location-scoped nature of favorites when credentials are configured. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it omits potential details like rate limits or error handling.

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 three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Each sentence delivers distinct value: what it finds, how to locate, and authentication/favorites behavior. There is no redundancy or fluff; it is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage modes and auth variations. It mentions the is_favorite flag and favorites_only behavior, which hints at the result structure. It does not describe the full return format or pagination, but for a search tool this is a minor gap; the core functionality is well explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting lat/lng are 'preferred,' explaining that address is geocoded via OpenStreetMap, and clarifying that favorites_only requires authentication and that favorites are inherently location-scoped. These details go beyond the property descriptions in the schema.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Find restaurants/shops that deliver to a location on efood.gr.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cart, order, and menu operations. It also narrows the scope to location-based delivery, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage context: provide lat/lng (preferred) or a free-text address geocoded via OpenStreetMap, and optional filters. It also differentiates public search from authenticated search with favorites. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when searching restaurants,' the siblings make it the only search tool, so the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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