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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond structured data by noting the menus are 'as published by that location' and that availability varies by location, helping agents anticipate missing or location-specific content.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, the scope, the data source, and a key availability caveat. No filler or repetition; every clause 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?

Given the simple tool shape, detailed parameter schema, and robust read-only annotations, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the return structure, but the absence of an output schema is less critical here since the resource is a straightforward menu retrieval.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the domain parameter refers to one specific Floreal location and adds the meaningful caveat that not every location publishes menus, which informs expected results for some domain values. This goes slightly beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 clearly identifies the resource as current restaurant and food & beverage menus for one Floreal location, which is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' but the noun phrase plus the title makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: this tool returns menus published by a specific location, and it explicitly warns that not every location publishes menus. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusion conditions directly, but the scope and the availability caveat give an agent enough guidance for when to use it.

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