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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the sentence 'Read-only; it does not create anything' largely restates structured data. It does add what the response contains (instructions, JSON format, example), which annotations cannot express, but nothing about size, caching, or whether the format is versioned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned artifacts, with the safety note second and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does the responsible work of naming the three things returned (instructions, format, example), which is enough for an agent to know it should call this before create_menu_preview. It only misses whether the format is authoritative or how large the payload is.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema fully covers the empty input with additionalProperties=false. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies unmodified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the step-by-step instructions, the JSON format and an example') and scopes it explicitly to create_menu_preview, which distinguishes it from about_prenoto_menu. An agent can tell exactly what this tool yields without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'for create_menu_preview' makes the usage context clear: fetch this before invoking the sibling that creates the preview. It lacks an explicit 'call this first' directive or any when-not guidance, so it is slightly short of full routing clarity.

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