get_restaurant_details

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe and repeatable calls. The description adds value by enumerating the returned data fields, giving agents an idea of expected output. It does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or any operational constraints, but given the annotations cover safety, the added context is sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key data categories without filler. It effectively conveys the tool's scope in one line, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points. Still, it is concise and to the point.

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 existence of an output schema and annotations that cover read-only and idempotent behavior, the description is adequately informative for a detail-fetching tool. However, it does not mention potential errors, prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid restaurant identifier), or the provider-specific behavior implied by the 'provider' parameter. These gaps are minor but noticeable when the agent must decide between similar tools.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions the types of data returned, which indirectly clarifies the purpose of restaurant_id_or_url, but it adds no extra syntax or format details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool fetches a full restaurant profile with specific data fields (award history, address, coordinates, budget, amenities), making the purpose clear. It differentiates from search tools by implying it retrieves details for a known restaurant. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_tabelog_restaurant_details, which may cause ambiguity for an agent deciding between the two.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tabelog_restaurant_details or search_restaurants. The description does not mention typical use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which a different tool would be more appropriate. An agent would need to infer usage from the parameter schema and sibling names.

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