suggest_tabelog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds that it is a 'direct shortcut' and behaves equivalently to suggest_dining with provider='tabelog', which provides some behavioral context (e.g., no additional filtering). It does not describe response format or potential quirks, but the annotations cover the most critical behavioral traits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and target, the second provides the exact equivalent call. Front-loaded and efficient, exactly what a shortcut description should be.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is almost complete. It conveys the core use case, the provider scope, and the equivalence to another tool. It does not explicitly mention error handling or edge cases, but the existence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity keep the gap small. One minor omission is explicit direction on when to use this versus the general suggest_dining, though that is somewhat implied.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the two parameters (query and limit). The description only mentions these parameters via the equivalent function call signature, not their meaning or constraints. It implies 'query' is the keyword to autocomplete from the phrase 'autocomplete keywords', but does not explain 'limit' or its default. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('autocomplete') and resource ('keywords on Tabelog Japan'), and explicitly frames it as a 'direct shortcut' to suggest_dining with provider='tabelog'. This clearly distinguishes it from the general suggest_dining and other tools like suggest_locations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by noting it is equivalent to suggest_dining(query, provider='tabelog', limit=limit), which implies it is the Tabelog-specific autocomplete tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over suggest_dining (e.g., 'use this when you only want Tabelog results'), though the equivalence hint provides reasonable guidance.

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