uber_eats_nearby_restaurants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only browse action returning open/closed status, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe location source (current address?), pagination behavior, or what the return payload structure looks like despite having an output schema.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by a one-line usage note and a single argument documented. Efficient and no wasted words, though it could be slightly tighter (the Args section partly duplicates schema info).

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 single-parameter browsing tool, the description covers the core use case, the differentiating guidance, and the key output signal (open/closed status). A deeper explanation of location behavior would improve it, but given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, it's reasonably 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?

The description mentions the limit argument (Max restaurants to return, default 15), which aligns with the schema's default of 15. However, schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema's property names carry no additional descriptions. The description adds the semantic meaning for limit but there's only one parameter and it's adequately explained.

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 verb (list) and resource (nearby/popular restaurants from the Uber Eats home feed). It distinguishes itself from siblings like uber_eats_search by explicitly targeting the home feed browsing use case and noting it returns open/closed status per restaurant.

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 explicitly states 'Good for browsing when the user doesn't have a specific craving,' which directly distinguishes this from search-oriented siblings like uber_eats_search. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with search for specific items.

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