tock_search_restaurants

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it specifies the returned venue fields (cuisine, price band, neighborhood, Tock slug) and the negative constraint that bookable slots are not included. It does not discuss pagination edge cases, but the schema covers limit.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words; the main action is front-loaded, the required input and optional behavior are stated next, and the important negative constraint about bookable slots is placed last. Every sentence contributes useful routing or behavioral information.

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 search/list tool with one required parameter and clear annotations, the description is complete: it tells the caller where to get the metro value, what inputs are optional, what fields are returned, what the output is NOT, and how to chain the result into related sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the return shape is described sufficiently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema handles parameter meaning well. The description still adds value by explaining that the metro slug comes from tock_list_metros, giving an example value, and characterizing query as an optional text filter. This is slightly more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List / search restaurants in a Tock metro.' It also draws clear contrast with siblings by noting it returns Tock slugs to use with tock_get_restaurant/tock_get_availability and explicitly excludes bookable slots, so an agent can distinguish it from availability or reservation tools.

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 says to pass a metro slug from tock_list_metros, making the dependency on a sibling concrete. It also tells the agent what to do with the returned slugs and warns that bookable slots are not included, which positively routes the agent to the correct alternative for availability.

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