get_tabelog_restaurant_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the valuable behavioral fact that it is equivalent to get_restaurant_details with provider='tabelog', clarifying it is a wrapper. It does not add additional behavioral context (e.g., data freshness or error conditions), but given the strong annotations, this 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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the equivalence is clearly stated in the second. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what input it takes, and its relationship to the general function. It could mention explicit usage guidance, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional explanation of the 'restaurant_id_or_url' parameter beyond naming it in the equivalence. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the input format and requirements implicit.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a Tabelog restaurant profile with specific fields (address, coordinates, budget, amenities) and explicitly distinguishes it as a 'direct shortcut' for the Tabelog provider, while naming the equivalent general call. This differentiates it from siblings like get_restaurant_details and search_tabelog.

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?

The description provides clear context that this is the Tabelog-specific shortcut and references the alternative get_restaurant_details(provider='tabelog'). It implies when to use it (when Tabelog data is needed) but does not explicitly spell out exclusions for other providers or edge cases, so it falls short of a full when/when-not list.

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