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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the guest reviews the basket, chooses collection or delivery, and pays on the restaurant's site, which clarifies that checkout happens outside the MCP tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds just enough detail about prefill and guest checkout. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary wording.

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 two-parameter link-generation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the ordering flow, item prefill, and external payment. Minor omissions such as link format or expiry do not prevent correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description partially compensates by explaining how item_id values from get_menu are used to prefill the basket. However, it does not explain the quantity parameter or its limits, and the item_id guidance largely repeats the schema description.

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: create a link to order from the restaurant's own website. It clearly explains the ordering purpose and guest flow, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling link tools such as get_booking_link or get_gift_voucher_link.

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 usage context by explaining that callers should pass item_id values from get_menu to prefill the basket. It does not state when not to use this tool or explicitly compare it with the booking or gift-voucher link alternatives.

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