Search Tabelog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: page size of 20, that 'total' is Tabelog's own count (not a computed value), and that per-result booking times are only populated when date, time, and party are supplied.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the conditional result behavior, then pagination. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 11 optional parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description does a fair job explaining result shape and pagination but leaves several filters (sort, budget_for, budget_max_yen, private_room, online_booking_only) without prose support. An agent can call it, but may pick filters incorrectly.

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 low at 27% across 11 parameters, so the description carries extra burden. It explains the conditional interaction between date/time/party and the returned booking times, but says nothing about area/keyword language expectations, sort options, budget fields, or private_room, leaving most parameters defined only by bare schema types.

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 and resource ('Search restaurants') and scopes it to Tabelog's filter set, which separates it from generic listing tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closer siblings find_available_restaurants and get_availability, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Search restaurants with Tabelog's filters' and by the conditional note about date/time/party, which hints at when the richer result appears. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus find_available_restaurants, get_availability, or find_area.

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