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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: store_id default 0 means the priceless national reference catalog, and prices appear only when store_id resolves to a priced catalog. It stops short of describing pagination or result size.

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 dense sentence that leads with the resource and payload, then qualifies the pricing condition. The parenthetical about store_id is somewhat packed, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read/open-world profile. Both parameters and the catalog-switching behavior are addressed, so an agent has what it needs; only edge cases like empty categories or pagination are unmentioned.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the meaning and consequence of the store_id value (0 = national reference catalog, real id = priced catalog), which the schema only gestures at with 'same semantics as /arbys/categories'.

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 the resource (Arby's menu, scoped by category) and specifies the payload precisely: full per-serving nutrition panel per item, plus price under certain store conditions. That is far more specific than a tautology. It lacks an explicit verb and never directly contrasts itself with arbys_categories, so the sibling distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It supplies the prerequisite chain by pointing at /arbys/categories for the required category slug and arbys_locations for valid store ids, which tells an agent how to call it correctly. It does not state exclusions or what to use instead when a price is not needed.

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