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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: what the response contains, that prices are item-only, and that fees are added at checkout per create_checkout_link. It does not mention result size limits or pagination, which would matter for large menus.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the payload contents come first, then the price/fee caveat, then the parameter guidance. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back, including the required-option-group detail that affects downstream checkout. Only the absence of size/pagination expectations keeps it from being fully complete for a potentially large menu response.

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 coverage is 67%, and the undescribed parameter (restaurant_id) is covered by the description's pointer to search_restaurants. The description also explains the intent of section vs search — narrowing an oversized menu — which goes beyond the schema's per-field examples.

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 and resource (get a restaurant's menu) and enumerates the returned payload: sections, items with item_id, descriptions, prices, and option groups including required flags. That level of specificity makes it unmistakable against siblings like search_restaurants or get_order_status.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent on where restaurant_id comes from ('Use restaurant_id from search_restaurants') and gives a narrowing strategy for large menus via section or search. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming an alternative tool for a different need.

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