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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioural burden. It hints at the output form (a prompt pack with examples rather than an analysis result) but discloses nothing about whether it reads or writes data, permissions, cost, or determinism, and the output-format hint is oblique rather than 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 sentences, both largely promotional ("production-ready", "you can run today", "copy-paste prompt pack with examples") rather than informative. It is short but the words do not earn their place — no concrete capability precedes the sales framing.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should define scope, inputs' meaning and result form. It covers none of these concretely, leaving an agent unable to predict what a call returns or how it differs from the many sibling menu/restaurant tools.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains what "query" does. The description adds no parameter guidance, which is acceptable at this coverage but earns no extra credit.

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 restates the name ("fnb menu engineer system") and adds only that it yields "a structured, repeatable workflow... delivered as a copy-paste prompt pack with examples." It never says what the tool actually analyses or produces — menu pricing, margin mix, item rationalisation, or something else — so the verb+resource is left undefined.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named, despite several close siblings (restaurant-menu-engineering, sanhao-menu-engineering, menu-cost-calculator, takeout-menu-optimizer). The only implied usage is a marketing audience callout that does not help an agent choose between tools.

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