foodpanda_restaurant_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns in detail (menu, prices, etc.), but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., if the restaurant code is invalid), or rate limits. It gives a good overview of output but lacks broader behavioral context.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with all essential details. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional details about return fields are efficiently listed. No fluff or redundancy. It earns a high score for conciseness and structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the structure of returned data (menu grouped by categories, item fields including title, description, image, sold-out flag, original_price, discounted_price). It also includes meta-info like opening hours and rating. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or what happens if the restaurant is not found, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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%: both 'code' and 'market' parameters have descriptions. The description itself adds minimal information beyond the schema, just restating that the menu includes prices. It does not add syntax, format, or relationship details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get one foodpanda restaurant's menu with prices.' It specifies the resource (restaurant menu) and what data is included (categories, opening hours, price range, cuisines, rating, item details). This distinguishes it from siblings like foodpanda_restaurant (likely details) and foodpanda_restaurant_reviews, and foodpanda_search. The purpose is 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 implies usage context (when you need a restaurant's menu) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It doesn't mention that the 'code' should come from /foodpanda/search, though that's in the schema. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided, so it relies on inference.

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