search_restaurants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond basic functionality, such as the default platform search behavior ('searches BOTH Resy and OpenTable by default') and what information is included in results ('ratings, cuisine type, and price range'). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination, which are important for a search 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, scope, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the search functionality and result fields well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more explicitly, though it does mention key fields like 'platform'.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning searchable fields ('by name, cuisine, or location') and the default platform behavior, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for restaurants') and resources ('restaurants'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on search rather than reservation management. It specifies the search scope (name, cuisine, location) and platforms covered (Resy and OpenTable), making it highly specific.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('search for restaurants by name, cuisine, or location') and mentions the default behavior (searches both platforms). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., check_availability for specific booking queries), which prevents a perfect score.

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