chipotle_restaurant_meals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains that prices vary by restaurant, that calorie labels are returned as strings (ranges for build-your-own, single figures for fixed meals), and that the tool covers specific meal families. It does not mention pagination or exact return envelope, but the disclosed field-level behavior is substantial.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, content scope, pricing nuance, sibling differentiation, and prerequisite sourcing are each covered. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid inventory of returned fields, a key data-shape caveat (calorie strings), a clear alternative, and a sourcing prerequisite. It does not describe pagination or the exact JSON structure, but for a list endpoint with two straightforward parameters, the guidance is largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the restaurant_number origins and by mapping the meal_type values (BuildYourOwn, HighProtein, Influencer) to the described product families. This goes beyond restating schema text.

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: "List one Chipotle restaurant's preset meals with prices." It further distinguishes itself from the sibling chipotle_meals by explaining that this endpoint provides restaurant-specific pricing while chipotle_meals has no prices. This makes the tool's identity and scope unambiguous.

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 states when to choose this endpoint: "this is the endpoint to use for real pricing rather than /chipotle/meals." It also provides a prerequisite, telling the agent that restaurant numbers come from GET /chipotle/restaurants. That is clear, actionable usage guidance.

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