food_place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: no read vs. write nature, no auth requirements (a 'token' parameter exists but is unexplained), no rate limits, no error behavior.

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?

It is concise, but only because it is drastically under-specified. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient front-loading.

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 4-parameter, zero-coverage, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool in a crowded food/ride toolset, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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% and there are 4 parameters (lat, long, place, token), all undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds zero parameter meaning; the agent cannot infer whether lat/long are inputs or outputs, or what 'token' is.

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 'Address search' is essentially a restatement of a name fragment and does not say what the tool does with the address (geocode, validate, lookup, store). With siblings like food_reverse and food_area, an agent cannot distinguish this tool's purpose. This is a tautology-level failure.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions specified. Among ~50 siblings, the agent is given no routing information at all.

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