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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: this is a static national catalog, it includes customization rules, and it deliberately omits pricing. That pricing gap is the kind of trait an agent would otherwise only discover after calling.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The scope claim is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately, so the reader gets both the capability and the limitation in one pass.

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 no explanation, and zero parameters plus readOnly/openWorld annotations cover the rest. The only small gap is that it doesn't state how this differs from chipotle_meals or chipotle_menu_metadata, which an agent may also see as candidates.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 concrete resource (Chipotle's national menu catalog) and its contents (every item sold nationally, plus customization rules). The word 'national' implicitly separates it from the per-restaurant sibling chipotle_restaurant_menu, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 'no prices (Chipotle prices per restaurant)' note gives clear guidance on what this tool will not answer and hints that per-restaurant pricing requires a different tool. It stops short of naming that alternative or stating exclusions explicitly, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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