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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by indicating the return format is a structured menu following the schema.org Menu shape, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not introduce contradictions.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. Every sentence earns its place, adding the structured shape and alias clarification.

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?

The tool is simple and well-covered by annotations. The description mentions the return shape (schema.org Menu) and the alias input, which is sufficient for invoking the tool. It could optionally detail what the menu contains, but referencing an established schema provides adequate context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that restaurant_id and entity_id are aliases and only one needs to be passed, which is essential semantic information not clear from the schema alone. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning or format of these identifiers beyond the implicit 'restaurant' context.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('structured menu for a restaurant'), and references the schema.org Menu shape, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_restaurant or get_hours. No ambiguity.

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 clarifies parameter usage ('restaurant_id and entity_id are aliases; pass either'), which is helpful for invoking the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_restaurant or get_details. It is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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