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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states read-only, lists the exact contents of the response (name, description, price where printed, etc.), and explains the error behavior for unverified venues. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and sets clear expectations for API behavior.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose (fetch verified menu) and then details the contents and error handling. Every clause adds value; there is no filler or repetition. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple, one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is comprehensive. It covers what is returned, the verification guarantee, and the failure mode. It does not omit any obvious behavioral aspect that an agent would need to know for safe 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?

The schema description for the single parameter 'slug' is fully descriptive, including the format and origin ('stable slug... from search_venues or find_drink'). The description itself adds no new information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies for 100% schema coverage.

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 action (fetch) and resource (one venue's verified non-alcoholic menu by slug). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'verified' and 'non-alcoholic', which is unique. The phrase 'every NA item we have read off the venue's own published menu' defines the exact scope, making it unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to fetch by slug and mentions that venues without a verified menu return an explanatory error, which tells the agent when it's appropriate (when a verified menu is needed). It does not name alternatives, but the parameter description points to search_venues and find_drink for obtaining the slug, giving practical guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the single-purpose nature makes that implicit.

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