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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the return shape is a schema.org Menu composed of sections of priced services, and the two parameters are equivalent aliases. There is no contradiction with 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 compact sentences carry all the essential information: purpose, return shape, sibling relationship, and parameter alias behavior. The most important detail is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 lookup with two string parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return shape, the alias usage, and the sibling distinction. Annotations cover the safety and idempotency expectations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 directly clarifies the relationship between salon_id and entity_id, stating they are aliases and either may be passed. This resolves the anyOf ambiguity that the raw schema leaves unexplained. Parameter names and minLength constraints cover the remaining needs for simple string identifiers.

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 and resource: 'Return a salon's service menu' with the schema.org Menu shape. It also explicitly names get_menu as the counterpart, which distinguishes this tool from a closely related sibling without opening any 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?

'Salon counterpart to get_menu' provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternative. The alias note 'salon_id and entity_id are aliases; pass either' also removes any ambiguity about which parameter to provide, directly addressing a confusing aspect of the input schema.

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