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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: prices are live and split by fulfillment channel, items carry a customization tree, and include_unavailable toggles unavailable items. It does not mention auth or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, then parameters, then sibling routing. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 not be explained, yet the description still characterizes the payload (dual pricing, customization tree). Combined with full parameter documentation, explicit sibling routing and covering annotations, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the parameters ('Provide restaurant_number; include_unavailable adds unavailable items') without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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), a precise resource (one Chipotle restaurant's live menu items) and scope (dine-in vs delivery prices, customization tree). It explicitly names the sibling menus it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from chipotle_menu, chipotle_meals and chipotle_restaurant_meals without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing: use chipotle_menu for the general menu, chipotle_meals for presets, chipotle_restaurant_meals for location-specific meal combos. The condition for this tool (one specific restaurant's live menu) is implied by contrast and the required restaurant_number.

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