search_restaurants

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes parameters and defaults but fails to mention key behaviors: that it is a read-only search, what happens with no results, pagination behavior beyond defaults, or any rate limits or prerequisites. The absence of such details limits transparency.

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 efficient: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean list of arguments with explanations. No redundant information. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adequately explains inputs, defaults, and pagination. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. However, missing information on error handling, empty results, or authentication context slightly reduces completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing clear explanations for each parameter, including the meaning of latitude/longitude (delivery address), query examples, valid location_mode values, and defaults. This adds substantial value beyond the schema titles, making parameters well-understood.

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 searches for restaurants near a location, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'search_campus_restaurants', which may also search for restaurants but in a campus context. The inclusion of location_mode with CAMPUS option provides some differentiation, but not explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_campus_restaurants'), nor does it mention when not to use it. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the parameter options.

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