restaurant_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether this is read-only, what happens with an invalid restaurant_id, or what kind of detail (address, hours, rating, etc.) is returned.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. Its brevity is not severely wasteful, but it borders on under-specification rather than a deliberate, information-dense summary.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin for an agent to know what will be returned or how to source a valid restaurant_id. It should at least name the detail categories returned or point to the search tool that produces IDs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented restaurant_id parameter. It only implies a single restaurant is targeted, without saying what form the ID takes, where to obtain it, or whether it must come from search_restaurants or tabelog_get.

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 and resource ('Get details for one restaurant'), which distinguishes it from search_restaurants by scoping to a single entity. However, it does not distinguish it from restaurant_reviews, restaurant_menu, or restaurant_photos, which all also return details for one restaurant.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling restaurant_* tools. The only implied usage is that a known restaurant_id is required, which the schema already conveys through the required field.

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