restaurant_photos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing: it does not say whether results are paginated (despite a 'page' parameter), how many photos come back, what fields each photo has, or whether any auth/rate limits apply. It repeats the title-level fact and adds no behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no front-loaded scope, return shape, or pagination note to anchor the agent.

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 a paged input whose semantics are undocumented, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the result shape and pagination behavior. Only the bare minimum needed to attempt a call is present.

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 and does not. It never mentions the 'page' parameter, so pagination semantics, page size, and how to know when to stop are entirely undocumented; only 'restaurant_id' is loosely implied by the word 'restaurant's'.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get + a restaurant's photos), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like restaurant_reviews or restaurant_menu. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the resource noun does the disambiguating work.

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 call this tool versus restaurant_detail (which may also return photos) or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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