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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: prices come from the register, include VAT, and alcohol is flagged 18+. It doesn't cover what happens if an unknown section name is passed, whether data is cached, or whether auth/locale constraints apply.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the argument behavior, then the alcohol caveat — no filler. The only cost is the bilingual duplication, which is a reasonable trade for Russian-language data but does repeat content.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets (sections overview vs section items), currency, VAT inclusion, and the 18+ marker — enough to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior for an unrecognized section.

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% and the schema already documents the single optional 'section' parameter with concrete examples ('бар', 'коктейли', 'горячее', 'десерты', 'детское'). The description only echoes the no-argument vs with-argument behavior, adding no new semantics.

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?

The description states the resource plainly — the menu with RUB prices from the register, including VAT, and notes alcohol is marked 18+. That is more than a restated name, but it doesn't name the sibling tools it competes with (get_kids_menu, search_menu, get_specials), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives clear invocation guidance for the optional argument: no argument returns a menu/section overview, with 'section' returns that section's items. It says nothing about when to prefer this over search_menu for specific dishes, get_kids_menu for children, or get_specials for promotions — the distinctions are left implicit.

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