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 structurally. The description usefully clarifies that the response is a customization tree with modifiers and price deltas, but adds no detail on pricing behavior across channels, caching, or auth/quota context.

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, zero waste, front-loaded purpose followed immediately by routing guidance. 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?

Output schema exists and parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't explain returns. It covers purpose and sibling routing sufficiently; the only minor gap is channel-dependent pricing behavior, which the channel param hints at but the description doesn't elaborate.

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 coverage is 100% (channel enum values, store_number and variant_code sources are all documented inline). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise resource set: one product variant's customization slots, modifiers, and price deltas. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling menu/deal tools, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use pizzahut_menu to find products, pizzahut_bundle_choices for a deal's bundle slots. This is a clean when-to-use-this vs alternatives statement with named siblings.

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