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

Annotations only declare it a safe, idempotent read; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: allergen_codes provenance, the fact that venue-specific allergens appear without a code, that allergen_disclosure.as_of is an edit date not a verification date, that disclosure.agent_instructions must be followed, and the critical null-vs-false semantics of dietary_flags.

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?

Purpose and the place_order linkage are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries needed allergen/legal semantics — none is filler. It is dense enough that a reader must parse carefully, but given the legal subject matter the length is justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: allergen code source, disclosure structure, provenance flags, and handling rules. For a legally sensitive menu/nutrition tool it leaves nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never explains the two inputs (restaurant_id, locale) — the heavy detail is all about response fields. The names are largely self-explanatory and locale's role is only implicitly hinted at via 'in their language', so this is adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Fetch the full public menu for a restaurant') instantly enumerates the payload (categories, products, prices, allergens, nutrition), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like list_public_menus, get_restaurant, or search_products without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete downstream purpose ('use this to build the cart you pass to place_order') and states it is a public no-auth tool. It does not, however, explicitly exclude or compare against close siblings such as list_public_menus or search_products, so the when-not guidance is missing.

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