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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses ordering (newest first), the exact returned field set, the exclusion of dish details and other resources, and a non-obvious permission requirement with a caveat about old connections or older ChefBear apps lacking it. That permission caveat is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Single dense paragraph with the usage trigger front-loaded and the return contents next. It is on the long side and mixes trigger, payload, and permission caveat without line breaks, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. The description still supplies the permission prerequisite and the handoff to get_menu, which are the remaining things an agent needs to call this correctly and follow up.

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 both parameters (limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema. The description's "newest first" corroborates the limit ordering but adds no syntax or pagination guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: "Lists the user's saved ChefBear menus," and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_menu by noting it returns no dish details, taste profile, orders or photos.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions (user refers to a saved/scanned menu without a link or menuId, or asks which menus are saved) and an explicit alternative: call get_menu with the chosen menuId. Both when-to-use and when-to-switch are covered.

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