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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the photo is included, allergen details are surfaced, and the agent is told to direct allergy concerns to a phone number. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then an important allergen note. Minor redundancy exists—'The photo is included in the result' repeats what the first sentence already states—but overall it is efficient and earns its length.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the annotations cover safety traits, and both parameters are fully documented, the description supplies the remaining essential context: when to invoke it and how to handle allergen-related customer concerns. Nothing critical is missing for correct tool 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 both 'name' and optional 'lane' are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: shows one menu item with photo, description, sizes, prices, and allergens. This clearly differentiates it from likely siblings like get_menu (whole menu) or search_menu (finding items) by scoping it to a single item.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when the customer asks what something is or wants to see it.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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