tabelog_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully declares the operation 'Read-only' and points to the spec for valid endpoints, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unknown endpoints, or response shape — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste that names the operation, scope, and spec reference. Nothing to trim.

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 generic escape-hatch GET with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs the endpoint format, how params are passed, and where the spec lives. The spec pointer and path prefix are present, but the params passthrough and error/response behavior are missing, leaving it only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It adds meaning for 'endpoint' (a name under the /tabelog_inbound_appli/ path) but the 'params' passthrough object — the key to actually using a generic GET — is entirely unexplained, leaving the more important half undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (GET) and resource scope (any endpoint under /tabelog_inbound_appli/), and the phrase 'escape hatch' distinguishes it from the named sibling tools like restaurant_detail or search_restaurants. It is clear this is a raw passthrough for endpoints not covered by a dedicated tool, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

'Escape hatch' implies fallback usage — call this when no dedicated tool fits — and 'see tabelog-api-spec' points to where endpoint names come from. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the 11 named siblings, nor any exclusion guidance.

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