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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by disclosing that the output is HTML, that it must be opened as an artifact, and that it is not required for ordering. The read-only nature is implied rather than explicitly stated, and side effects are not mentioned, but 'Show' makes the action sufficiently clear.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: action and output format, presentation instruction, and a sibling distinction. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains that the result is HTML and how to present it. The optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, no nested objects or enums exist, and the key alternative (prepare_order) is explicitly differentiated. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents both clientId and vendorId with meaningful context ('from a list_vendors result'). The description itself adds no further parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Show the restaurant's menu') and gives concrete output details: an HTML document with a horizontally-scrollable category strip, item photos, names, and prices. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_order by stating that ordering does not require this tool.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when the menu should be shown to the user as a visual HTML artifact. It also gives an explicit exclusion for ordering and names the alternative (prepare_order), which resolves item names on its own. The presentation instruction (open as artifact, do not paste) is additional concrete usage guidance.

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