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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: prices are in EUR from the website, tied to as_of, may change, and null price means no price is shown. It also explains lang_served semantics.

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 dense and front-loads the resource and price context. It is generally efficient, though the trailing 'API v3' adds little practical value for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 present, the description appropriately supplies key return semantics: currency, as_of, price null behavior, and lang_served meaning. It is fairly complete for a read-only menu/treatment retrieval tool, with remaining gaps mainly around explicit sibling routing.

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 input schema already documents the lang, venue, and section parameters. The description adds meaning to returned fields like price and lang_served, but does not add much input-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the resource: a venue's menu, drinks, or spa treatments with website prices. It is specific enough to identify the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as get_venue.

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 resource description. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_venue for general venue facts.

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