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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds real value: it discloses that the link is visible to anyone holding it, enumerates the returned content (dish names, descriptions, categories, prices, owner display name), and warns that shared menu text is untrusted content rather than instructions. It also confirms nothing is saved to the account or changed about the link.

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-loaded with the trigger condition, then scope of return, then safety note, then exclusion — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still sketches them briefly. Combined with the injection warning, the read-only framing, and the sibling routing, an agent has everything required to select and call this tool correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by pinning down the URL family that counts as a share link and explicitly excluding the /my-menu/ form, which prevents a mis-supplied argument.

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 (reads a ChefBear shared menu link) and immediately contrasts it with the private-link sibling get_menu. An agent can distinguish get_shared_menu from share_menu, revoke_menu_share, and get_menu without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger (user supplies a https://chef-bear.com/m/… link, either received or just created) plus explicit exclusion (own private https://chef-bear.com/my-menu/… links belong to get_menu). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with the named alternative are present.

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