Get the food menu for a specific restaurant on this site. Returns menus with their sections, dishes, descriptions, prices, and dietary labels (vegan, gluten-free, etc). Use search_places or list_categories first to find the restaurant's place_slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_slug | Yes | The slug of the restaurant, e.g. "bar-do-ze" (from search_places or a place URL). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description alone must convey behavior. It mentions returns (menus, dishes, labels) but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid slug), side effects, or auth needs. The read nature is implied but not explicit.
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 concise sentences: first defines the action and output, second provides essential usage guidance. No redundant words or unnecessary details.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, return content, and parameter source. Minor gaps: no mention of empty results or pagination, but acceptable.
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% with a clear description of place_slug. The description adds real-world context by providing an example ('bar-do-ze') and the source (search_places or URL), exceeding schema information.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves food menus for a specific restaurant, including sections, dishes, prices, and dietary labels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_dishes by requiring a place_slug and referencing prerequisite tools.
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 explicitly instructs to use search_places or list_categories first to obtain the place_slug. It lacks alternative usage or when-not-to-use guidance but provides a clear prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. Tools like create_booking and request_reservation target different services (appointments vs. restaurant tables), and reserve_event_tickets vs. rsvp_event differentiate paid holds from free RSVPs. No overlapping functionality that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_dishes) using lowercase with underscores. No mixing of conventions or irregular verbs.
28 tools cover a broad domain of neighborhood directory services (bookings, events, movies, restaurant menus, forms, etc.). While the count is slightly high, each tool serves a specific function and is justified by the domain scope.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a neighborhood directory: search, booking, reservations, event management, menus, reviews, forms, loyalty, and more. No obvious gaps; all core user needs are addressed.
