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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that each match includes price, description, photo URL, and allergens. More importantly, it gives the agent a directive on how to handle unresolved allergies (tell the customer and provide the phone number), which is essential behavioral guidance not derivable from annotations.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose and scope first, followed by the result contents and the allergy-handling instruction. Every sentence earns its place—no filler, no repeated schema info. The structure is efficient and front-loaded with the actionable verb and resource.

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 search tool with two parameters (one required), a complete output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to search, where to search, what is returned, and how to handle a common edge case (unresolved allergen). The phone number even addresses escalation. Nothing critical is missing.

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 both parameters (query and lane) are already documented. The description reinforces that query is a few words and implies lane scope via 'today's counter menu and catering,' but does not add new syntax or format details. Since the schema fully covers parameter meanings, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal semantic value 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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('menu items') with a precise scope ('today's counter menu and catering'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_menu (full menu) and show_item (single item) by focusing on keyword search across both menu segments. The mention of return fields (price, description, photo URL, allergens) further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a few words like a filling, pastry, 'vegan', or 'ube' are given to search the menu. It also provides clear guidance on allergen handling (if allergy not settled, say so and point to phone). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the purpose implicitly distinguishes it from siblings. This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use.

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