Bashoor Cafe Mashhad — منوی زنده و قیمت‌ها

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'official' and 'representative' qualifiers, hinting at data authority and possibly indicative pricing, but it does not disclose error behavior, output format, or other side effects beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence starting with the action and resource, followed by a compact enumerated list of returned data fields. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the expected return contents (address, coordinates, hours, phone, features, recommendation context, live-menu links, representative coffee prices). Combined with the safety annotations, an agent has all necessary context to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score of 4 applies; nothing else is required from the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly bounded resource ('Bashoor Cafe's official address, coordinates, hours, phone, features, recommendation context, live-menu links and representative coffee prices'). It unambiguously identifies this as a business-profile retrieval tool and is distinct from the sibling menu 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 makes the tool's purpose obvious: it retrieves a business profile. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions, the specificity of the resource makes it clear when this tool should be used. No exclusions are necessary because the tool's scope is well-defined.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the menu is 'complete' and 'current public', which clarifies scope but does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether the menu is cached. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource ('Bashoor Cafe's complete current public menu') and then lists the included content. Every element earns its place; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and the scope ('complete current public menu'). The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact response structure (e.g., whether prices are in a nested object), but with no output schema and no parameters, the description does enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by specifying exactly what the tool returns (categories, descriptions, prices, variants, modifiers, item URLs, update timestamps), which gives the agent a clear idea of the output shape. Since there are no parameters to document, the description's content coverage is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Bashoor Cafe's complete current public menu'), and enumerates the content (categories, descriptions, prices, variants, modifiers, item URLs, update timestamps). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: get_business_profile is about the business profile, and search_menu is for searching, while this tool returns the complete menu.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need the full current public menu, and the sibling names suggest search_menu is for narrower queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_menu (e.g., 'use search_menu when you need a subset or filtered results'). The context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the menu is live and bilingual, and results can be filtered by category and max price. It does not disclose return shape or pagination behavior, which is acceptable given the read-only annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence states the core action first and then tacks on the optional filters without redundancy. Every element (live, bilingual, search-by fields, filters) carries meaning; no filler.

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 search with four well-documented params and no output schema, the description captures the tool's purpose and optional behavior adequately. It even notes the currency ('Toman') and the bilingual nature of the data. The only omission is the exact return fields, which is a minor gap for a search tool.

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% – all four parameters have individual descriptions with examples and ranges. The description's mention of 'category' and 'maximum starting price in Toman' simply mirrors the schema, adding no new semantics. Baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource – 'Search Bashoor Cafe's live bilingual Persian/English menu' – and lists the search fields (item, description, category). The optional category and max-price filters round out the scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_menu, but the search framing sets it apart from a plain menu fetch.

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 implies this is the search entry point versus the full-menu sibling, but never explicitly says when to choose it over get_menu or get_business_profile. There are no exclusions or when-not notes. Usage context is only inferable from the verb 'Search' and the optional filters.

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