find_dining

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (restaurant metadata with specific fields) and hints at filtering behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, pagination, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure—adequate but with gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and a usage guideline. Both sentences earn their place—the first defines the tool, and the second provides critical context. It's efficient with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying return metadata and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and nested objects, it's mostly complete but could improve by addressing missing behavioral transparency.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning filters generally but not elaborating on parameter usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Find dining locations at Disney parks with filters') and resource ('restaurant metadata'), distinguishing it from siblings like find_attractions (which focuses on attractions rather than dining) and list_parks (which lists parks rather than restaurants). It provides a comprehensive list of what metadata is returned, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 'Use list_parks first to get valid destination and park IDs,' providing clear prerequisites and guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention other siblings like search or discover, but the specific instruction for list_parks as a prerequisite is sufficient for a top score.

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