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

'Read-only; changes nothing' merely restates the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and adds nothing new. The trailing 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' is noise for a tool with zero monetary parameters, so the description contributes no behavioral value beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the third sentence about money minor units does not earn its place on a parameterless read tool, detracting from an otherwise tight definition.

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?

Complexity is minimal (0 params, no nesting, no output schema) and the input schema description explains the returned structure, so an agent has enough to call it. The main description itself is thin but the definition overall is complete enough for the task.

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 per the baseline this scores 4. The schema description already documents the returned item shape (label, kind, target, children), and the main description adds nothing further on parameters.

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?

Identifies a specific resource (the shop's header menu) but supplies no verb; the retrieval action is only inferable from the tool name menu_get. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling menu_set, which the schema description does instead.

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 main description gives no when-to-use guidance. The useful directive 'Read it before menu.set' appears only in the input schema description, which implies the read/write pairing but isn't stated in the description itself.

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