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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it never says whether setting the active address overwrites a previous one, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the menu fetch half fails — despite the schema's notification_message field hinting at a failure-handling flow. The mutation half is named but its effects are undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, clearly ordered (set address, then fetch menu). It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a two-step mutation.

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 composite tool with a write step, four parameters (two of them duplicated API fields), no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent is left unsure about address-id sourcing, failure behavior, and what the menu response contains.

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 four parameters, including the duplicated address_id fields and the notification_message fallback text, are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific compound action: setting the active delivery address and fetching the chowsmart menu for that address. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish the menu-fetch half from the sibling search_menu_by_address, which could plausibly cover similar ground.

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 only implied by the name and the 'for that address' phrasing — an agent can infer this is a set-then-fetch composite step, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_menu_by_address or why the address must come from get_addresses (that hint lives only in the schema). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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