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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing what the response contains (priced menu with delivery vs pickup pricing, nutrition, allergen flags), which is behavioral context an agent needs. No auth or rate-limit notes, keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the routing hint follows, so an agent gets purpose before alternatives.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, payload contents, and sibling routing. Complete enough to call correctly; only very minor gaps (no mention of market scoping behavior) remain.

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%, so market (US/CA, default US) and store_id (numeric id from locations) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource (a Burger King location's priced menu) and enumerates what the payload contains: delivery/pickup prices, nutrition, flagged allergens. An agent can distinguish it from burgerking_product or burgerking_locations without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use burgerking_product for a single item's customization choices and burgerking_locations to find a restaurant, implying this tool is for the full location menu. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the alternative-path guidance is clear.

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