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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is a customization tree with swappable courses/size choices, but says nothing about latency, auth, or region constraints beyond what market implies. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core capability and followed immediately by sibling routing. No filler or redundancy; 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 read-only fetch with an output schema, annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description covers what it returns and how it relates to siblings. The only missing element is an explicit statement of when this tool is preferred over burgerking_menu, which is minor given the output schema carries the return detail.

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 store_id, item_id, and market are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or enumeration detail for these parameters, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented params 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') plus the exact resource: a Burger King item, combo, or picker, and the payload type (customization tree with swappable courses/size choices). This is clearly distinguishable from burgerking_menu (browse/priced listings) and burgerking_locations (store finding) without opening a 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?

It names both alternatives and their roles: burgerking_menu to browse priced items, burgerking_locations to find stores. This implicitly routes the agent (use product when you have a specific id and need the customization tree), but it never states the positive 'when to use this' condition explicitly or any prerequisites like requiring ids from the other two tools.

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