chick_fil_a_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination behavior (one page, deterministic alphabetical ordering without search), the catalog size (567 items), and a notable limitation (no prices or nutrition values). It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the absence of any mutation language and the 'Browse' framing make the safety profile reasonably clear.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose and return fields, then covers pagination/search behavior, then the taxonomy follow-up pattern, and ends with the limitation note. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly long, but the density justifies the length.

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 read-only catalog listing tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what fields come back, how to page deterministically, how to use taxonomy ids for follow-up calls, and what data is absent. It doesn't describe the exact response envelope or error behavior, but those are minor gaps for this tool type.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between the taxonomy id parameters and the returned fields, and by clarifying that search changes ordering to relevance-ranked. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for individual parameters like page, per_page, or the comma-separated filter formats, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Browse the Chick-fil-A menu') and immediately enumerates the exact fields returned (item name, slug, tag, ordering deep link, taxonomy term ids). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chick_fil_a_menu_item and chick_fil_a_menu_taxonomy by clarifying it returns a paginated catalog page rather than a single item or taxonomy listing.

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 explicitly explains when to use search vs. no search ('search filters by free text and is ranked by relevance; without it items come back alphabetically so a caller can page through the whole catalog deterministically'). It also tells the caller how to use the returned taxonomy ids as filter values for follow-up calls and points to GET /chick-fil-a/menu-taxonomy for term names. This is actionable routing guidance.

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