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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a schema.org Menu structure and the two identifiers are interchangeable aliases. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the alias note is the only extra needed. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, return shape, and parameter relationship. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by the schema.org Menu reference, though exact menu fields are not enumerated. This is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does exactly this by stating that restaurant_id and entity_id are aliases and that either may be passed, clarifying the schema's anyOf constraint. It does not describe identifier formats or precedence, but the alias clarification is high-value.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Return' and the resource 'structured menu for a restaurant,' and even names the output shape as schema.org Menu. It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_restaurant or get_hours.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a restaurant's menu but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as get_restaurant or get_hours. There is no 'use X instead' statement or exclusion criteria. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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