List restaurants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the scoping note that dish prices are absent and that vendor codes come from this call, but gives no auth, rate-limit, or pagination depth beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact usage block; every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but well organized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are legitimately omitted. For a nine-parameter read-only listing tool the description covers purpose, usage, and the menu-vs-listing boundary, leaving only minor behavioral specifics unstated.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at the sort/filter dimensions through prose ('best rated, free delivery, with discount') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('List restaurants') and enriches it with the delivered-to-a-point scope plus rating, delivery fee, ETA and coupon content. It differentiates from food_menu by explicitly excluding dish prices, though it doesn't name the full sibling set.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it – browsing or ranking (best rated, free delivery, with discount) or finding a vendor code by name – and names the alternative for a related need ('No dish prices: use food_menu for those'). The condition selecting each path is clear.

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