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 useful behavioral context by revealing that prices are per-item for both dine-in and delivery and that a customization tree is returned. It says nothing about the effect of include_unavailable or whether pricing varies by restaurant, which is where extra value would lie.

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 that wastes nothing and leads with the resource plus the key differentiator (prices). The all-caps emphasis on 'WITH PRICES' is slightly shouty but effectively signals the value proposition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description is adequate for a 2-parameter read tool. But given the dense Chipotle sibling cluster (chipotle_menu, chipotle_meals, chipotle_restaurant_meals), omitting any steer toward or away from those alternatives leaves a real selection gap.

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% (both restaurant_number and include_unavailable are documented inline), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, syntax, or sourcing detail for the restaurant id beyond what the schema already states.

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 resource (Chipotle menu) and explicitly enumerates scope: prices for dine-in and delivery, plus the customization tree. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling chipotle_menu or ties the output to the required restaurant_number, so an agent can't tell why it would pick this over the sibling menu tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., 'requires a valid Chipotle restaurant id'), and no mention of alternatives such as chipotle_menu or chipotle_meals. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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