chipotle_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It openly explains a critical quirk: pricing is intentionally suppressed and the upstream returns zeros, so surfacing those zeros would mislead users into reading 'free' rather than 'unpriced.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to avoid misrepresenting results.

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 several sentences long, but each one earns its place: scope, contents, no-param confirmation, the price-omission rationale, and the alternative endpoint. The front-loaded first sentence states the primary purpose immediately. Slightly verbose in the middle, but not wasteful.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the response contains, what it deliberately omits and why, and how to obtain the missing data (restaurant-specific prices). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret the response is left unstated.

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?

The input schema is empty and there are no parameters, so the description need only confirm this. It does so explicitly ('Takes no parameters'), aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No further clarification is necessary.

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: 'Get Chipotle's national menu catalog.' It further details the scope ('restaurant-independent', 'every item it sells nationally') and the contents (entrees, sides, drinks, category, type, primary filling, customization tree), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like chipotle_restaurant_menu and chipotle_meals.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'Use GET /chipotle/restaurant/menu for real prices.' It also clarifies that prices are deliberately omitted from this response because they are restaurant-specific, giving a concrete condition for choosing between the national catalog and the per-restaurant endpoint.

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