Restaurant details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful field-level context by listing the restaurant data returned, but it does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, failure modes, or response structure beyond the field names.

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 a single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and a concise field list. It is appropriately sized, though "information table" is slightly telegraphic compared with using a clear retrieval verb.

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 read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and safety annotations, the definition is largely complete. Because there is no output schema, enumerating the returned fields adds helpful context; only error behavior or URL validation details are missing, which are minor for this tool.

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 100%, and the sole parameter is fully documented as a tabelog.com restaurant page URL returned by search_restaurants. The description does not add syntax, validation, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states that this tool returns Tabelog information for one restaurant and enumerates the fields available, such as genre, address, hours, budget, and payment. It distinguishes a single-restaurant lookup from list/search tools by scoping to "one restaurant," though it does not explicitly name search_restaurants as the alternative.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only routing cue is the phrase "for one restaurant," while the schema separately notes that restaurant_url comes from search_restaurants.

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