Search Restaurants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (id, name, cuisine, rating, delivery fee, etc.), the chain-related fields, and the branching condition for using another tool. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a search tool implies it; this is a minor omission.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and location/currency, then the return fields and the chain branching. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return fields and chain logic sufficiently. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but the limit parameter covers result count. For a search tool, this is reasonably complete, though a note on result ordering would push it to 5.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about the query examples and the return behavior, but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (restaurants on foodpanda Hong Kong), adds location and currency context, and enumerates the return fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_restaurant_details and list_outlets by focusing on the search function.

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 provides an alternative when total_outlets > 1, directing the agent to use list_outlets with chain_code. This gives clear conditional guidance on tool selection, exceeding the bare minimum.

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