search_tabelog

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect concerns. The description adds the geographic scope ('across Japan') and the equivalence to the general function, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination details. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the equivalence is stated concisely. Every sentence earns its place without redundant phrasing.

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?

For a shortcut tool with an existing output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It clarifies the Tabelog scope and relationship to the general search function. No essential information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema carries full parameter semantics, the description adds minimal value beyond clarifying the overall scope, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 searches restaurants across Japan on Tabelog, using the verb 'search' with a specific resource and geographic scope. It also names the equivalent general function, which differentiates it from siblings like suggest_tabelog and get_tabelog_restaurant_details.

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 explicitly states the tool is a direct shortcut equivalent to `search_restaurants(..., provider='tabelog')`, giving the agent a clear relationship to an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_restaurants or suggest_tabelog, though the equivalence implies the Tabelog-specific scope.

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