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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that the tool is scoped to Deenwise *partner* restaurants, implying non-partner IDs may not resolve — but says nothing about error behavior, caching, or whether the menu is time-sensitive.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase, which slightly weakens the action framing but wastes no words.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (dishes, prices, allergens), covering the return-value burden. Only the failure mode for non-partner or unknown restaurant IDs is left unstated.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents its provenance ("From find_restaurants"). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier format or expected values, so 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?

The description names a specific resource (a Deenwise partner restaurant's menu) and enumerates its contents — available dishes, prices, allergens — so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from find_restaurants or other siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of a prerequisite (obtaining restaurant_id from find_restaurants), and no stated alternatives or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the purpose statement itself.

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