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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by describing the shape of the returned menu tree and dietary labels, though it says nothing about pagination, missing menus, or empty results.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, return contents second, prerequisite last — no filler and nothing repeated.

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 a single fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description does the needed extra work by explaining what the response contains, which is the main gap such a tool would otherwise have.

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 100% and the schema already explains place_slug as coming from search_places or a place URL, including an example. The description only restates the same provenance, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the food menu for a specific restaurant on this site') and then enumerates the payload (sections, dishes, descriptions, prices, dietary labels), which separates it from search_dishes and get_place without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite path: 'Use search_places or list_categories first to find the restaurant's place_slug.' It gives clear context but does not state any when-not condition or contrast with search_dishes for dish-level lookup.

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