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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context beyond safety: it specifies that the response is store-specific, resolves combos to full slot composition (choices, min/max, defaults), and includes named ordering windows. It does not, however, discuss authentication needs, rate limits, or potential pagination, so some transparency gaps remain.

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?

The description is one dense but well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the differentiators (combos, slot composition, ordering windows). It is information-dense without unnecessary repetition, though the length could be slightly reduced without losing value.

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 format details are not required in the description. The description covers the key capabilities (categories, products, combos, ordering windows) and positional uniqueness, which should be sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. Minor omission: no explicit guidance on when to prefer simpler siblings for less detailed data.

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 (store_number) is fully documented in the schema with a clear source reference. The description does not elaborate on parameter format, sourcing, or constraints beyond saying the catalog is by store number. With schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline is 3.

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?

Description states a specific resource and scope: the full app-ordering catalog for a given store number, including categories, products, combos, and ordering windows. It clearly distinguishes from sibling taco_bell_menu by explaining that this is the only endpoint that resolves combos with slot composition. However, it does not explicitly name other siblings like taco_bell_menu or taco_bell_store_menu, so sibling differentiation is present but not exhaustive.

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 description implies the tool is used when you need a complete, combo-resolved catalog for a store, and notes it is the only endpoint in the family that publishes combos. However, it does not state when to avoid it or which alternatives to use for simpler menu needs (e.g., the store-agnostic taco_bell_menu). Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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