search_restaurants

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. It lists some allowed parameter values and an ID prerequisite, but does not explain what the search types mean, how latitude/longitude/range interact, pagination behavior, result limits, or what the response contains.

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 purpose and then parameter value lists, with little wasted text. It is dense and readable, though the run-on enumeration of parameter values is less structured than it could 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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits too much: it does not clarify how the search modes work, how coordinates and range are used, pagination defaults, or what a caller receives back.

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 supply parameter meaning. It does add important domain values for search_type, area_datatype, genre_datatype, and sort_mode, and points to the source for area/genre IDs, but leaves page, range, latitude, and longitude entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search Japanese restaurants.' It distinguishes the tool from detail-oriented siblings only indirectly by naming the area tools and suggest_search as ID sources, not by explicitly contrasting use cases.

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 a useful prerequisite: 'Get ids from the area tools and suggest_search.' However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over restaurant_detail, suggest_search, or popular_nearby, nor does it state exclusions or required combinations.

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