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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior by disclosing the $0.02 USDC cost and the no-charge condition when the restaurant is not found. That pricing and failure-charging detail is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from annotations, though nothing is said about result size or truncation for large chains.

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, no filler: the first states what is returned, the second states cost and the refund condition. Both are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the return payload fields and the cost model. The minor gap is that it does not characterize result size or ordering, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 carries an example ("Sweetgreen"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no new meaning about the restaurant argument, making the baseline 3 the correct score here.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the full menu for a restaurant") and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (calories, protein, carbs, fat for every item), which maps to the title's promise. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like get_item_macros or find_items, so an agent must infer the granularity distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by "full menu for a restaurant" versus the sibling get_item_macros, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no statement about search_restaurants being the prerequisite for discovering a valid restaurant name.

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