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. The description adds the shape of returned data (local prices, calories, dietary tags, components, images), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it discloses nothing about pagination, caching, or failure modes. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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 sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and payload are front-loaded, with the sibling routing tucked into the second sentence where it belongs.

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 elaboration, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly; the only minor gap is no guidance on what to do if a restaurant_number is invalid or a meal_type filter yields empty results.

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 both restaurant_number and meal_type are already documented in the schema, including the enumerated meal types. The description only restates that filtering by meal type is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (preset Chipotle meals for one restaurant) with the exact payload contents. It explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from chipotle_meals and chipotle_restaurant_menu without opening schemas.

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 to alternatives: 'Use chipotle_meals for broader meal data or chipotle_restaurant_menu for menu items.' This gives clear selection context. It stops short of stating an explicit when-not for this tool (e.g. 'do not use if you only need nutrition facts'), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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