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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description repeating it. The description adds no behavioral detail of its own (e.g., behavior on an unknown store ID, pagination or caching), so it stays at the minimum-viable level for an annotated read-only fetch.

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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the routing guidance follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a single-param detail tool with an output schema (which removes any need to describe return values) and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete. It is silent only on edge behavior such as an invalid or non-existent store ID, a minor 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%, and the schema itself carries the important nuance (real store ID vs. the reference-catalog IDs 0-3 accepted by arbys_menu). The description only restates "by store ID," adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ("one Arby's restaurant record") with explicit cardinality ("one") and lookup key ("by store ID"). This cleanly separates it from sibling arbys_locations, which lists rather than fetches a single record.

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 arbys_locations or arbys_directory to obtain the prerequisite store IDs, and arbys_menu for menu items. This covers both how to satisfy the required parameter and which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks.

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