Discounted restaurants

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the conditional 'Gem' hunt discount that may or may not be live, and by clarifying the result granularity is vendor-level.

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, zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the boundary/alternative note comes after, which is the right ordering.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is minor: it does not hint at how many vendors come back or any pagination/limit behavior, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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% and both lat/long carry inline ranges and Iran-specific bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the coordinates beyond what is already there, which is the expected baseline.

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+resource ('List restaurants running a discount now') and adds scope boundaries: vendor-level only, with food_menu named as the place for prices. An agent can distinguish it from food_search, food_restaurants and food_menu without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger phrase ('which restaurants have offers') and routes a related need to the alternative tool (food_menu for prices). It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites, but the alternative routing is clear.

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