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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result is a menu/service list slice, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as error cases, data availability, or response structure.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes a useful sibling comparison. Every word contributes, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the low complexity of the tool, strong annotations, and a single required parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It communicates the return category ('menu / service list') and the vertical-agnostic scope, though a bit more detail about the expected entity_id usage would make it fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain entity_id beyond the phrase 'for one entity,' which largely restates the parameter name. The parameter is self-evident to some degree, but the description fails to provide any additional meaning such as how to obtain entity_id or expected value formats.

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 clearly states that this tool returns a detail slice for one entity, specifically a menu or service list. It also distinguishes itself by calling out get_menu/get_services as vertical-specific siblings, making its unique role immediately clear.

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?

The description names the alternative tools and characterizes get_details as the 'vertical-agnostic counterpart' of get_menu/get_services, which gives the agent strong contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the counterpart relationship implies the selection criterion well.

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