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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'current,' location-published, and not guaranteed to exist, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not state what happens for locations without menus or describe the return format, leaving some uncertainty.

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?

The description is a single tight sentence plus a one-sentence caveat, with no filler or repetition. The key availability limitation is stated directly and front-loaded enough that an agent will notice it.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers the core context: what is returned, for which kind of location, and the important caveat that menus are not universally published. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the response format would improve completeness, but the essential invocation context is present.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the domain slug example and the language enum with a default. The description adds little beyond 'one Floreal location,' which maps to the domain parameter, so it provides no substantial extra parameter semantics.

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 (restaurant and food & beverage menus) and its scope (one Floreal location), and highlights a key limitation: not every location publishes menus. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns,' and it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 implies that this tool should be used to retrieve menus for a single specific Floreal location, and the 'Not every location publishes menus' caveat is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or what to do when a location does not publish menus.

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