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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it declares what the return contains (active items only, sold-out flag, image URL), that prices are USD, that the order URL appears conditionally, and that ordering is out of scope. It doesn't cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but the read-only nature is unmistakable.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns; the ordering boundary is placed last where it belongs. Every clause adds information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does thoroughly (fields, currency, conditional order URL). Combined with full schema coverage on the only parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example value ("nitos"). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never says what a subdomain is or how to obtain one — so the schema is doing all the work.

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+resource ("The current public menu of one business") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It doesn't name siblings like get_business to draw an explicit boundary, but the menu-vs-business resource split is clear.

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?

Gives a clear condition and next step: when ordering is open, include the order page URL and send the customer to that link. It also states a hard exclusion ("this tool cannot place orders"), which prevents misuse. No named alternative tool is offered, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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