Find cheapest dish

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world read, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the ranking formula (food after discount + packaging + delivery), the min_order caveat, and the relative slowness versus food_search.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then usage and the pricing caveat. No filler; minor room to tighten the ranking/caveat sentence but it earns its place.

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, return-value explanation isn't needed. The description covers purpose, trigger condition, ranking semantics, the min_order pitfall, and sibling routing, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 lat/long/query/limit/max_restaurants are all documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual context (total price components, min_order) but no parameter-specific syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (find the cheapest) and resource (a dish via restaurant menus + FoodParty deals), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling food_search. An agent can distinguish it from food_search without opening either 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?

"Use when the user wants the lowest total price for X" gives clear usage context, and "Slower than food_search" signals the alternative and trade-off. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule, but the cost/speed trade-off effectively routes the agent.

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