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

The description labels the operation 'FINANCIAL + WRITE', going beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explaining the real-world impact. The confirmation requirement is additional behavioral context not present in the annotations. It does not discuss side effects on existing orders, but that is a minor gap for a simple price-setting tool.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the admin scope, then states the action, role requirement, and confirmation expectation with no wasted words. Every phrase adds useful 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?

For a low-complexity, three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical operational caveats: admin-only access, financial/write nature, and the need to confirm with the user. The main gap is the undocumented restaurant_id and menu_item_id semantics, though their roles are largely inferable from the parameter names and tool title.

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 only 33%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining restaurant_id and menu_item_id, but it does not. The only referenced concept is 'price,' which merely echoes the existing schema description for price_cents and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 starts with 'ADMIN' and states 'Sets the price of a menu item,' naming the specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update_menu_item, which would handle broader menu-item edits rather than price changes specifically.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the required roles (pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator) and instructing the agent to confirm the new price with the user before invoking. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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