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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description goes well beyond them with domain semantics an agent needs: prices include VAT, unit-based pricing (pcs, portion, pack, kg, g, l, cl, ml, m), weight in grams, preparation time in minutes implying minimum order notice, and the main image when set.

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-loads the resource and packs field semantics into a compact paragraph, though the unit/prep-time clause is dense and slightly run-on. Every sentence still carries information an agent needs to interpret the menu output.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return-value burden by describing categories, products, pricing/currency/VAT, availability, units, weight, prep time, and images. Combined with the 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything required to call and interpret the tool.

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 both parameters are already documented; the description only restates that query filters matching products and that shop comes from find_shops, which the schema says itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate since it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('The menu of a shop from find_shops') and enumerates the returned fields (categories, products, prices in DKK incl. VAT, availability). It explicitly ties itself to the sibling find_shops, so an agent can distinguish it from available_times, order_status, quote_order, and place_order.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a shop's menu, optionally narrowing with a query, with the shop value sourced from find_shops. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how it relates to ordering siblings like quote_order or place_order.

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