kfc_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the return structure (grouped categories), entry types (product vs bundle vs priced variant), price format (USD cents plus decimal dollar value), image presence conditionality, and channel-dependent pricing with a concrete example. This goes far beyond a minimal 'get menu' statement.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the return data details, and the channel semantics. It is front-loaded and compact, with no filler or repetition. An agent can parse the essential behavior quickly.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing return composition, entry types, prices, images, and channel behavior. It does not provide explicit field names or error/pagination behavior, but for a two-parameter read-only tool these are minor gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for channel: it names the web default, explains that prices genuinely vary by channel, and gives examples. This helps the agent select appropriate enum values. store_number is already well documented in the schema.

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 one KFC restaurant's full priced menu.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from KFC siblings like kfc_stores or kfc_nearby by stating it returns a single restaurant's menu, grouped into categories. The scope and content are explicit.

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 provides clear context: this is for one restaurant's full menu, priced per order channel, and specifically warns that prices are not a national default. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no other KFC sibling tool fetches a menu, so the appropriate use case is unambiguous. The schema's store_number note also points to /kfc/stores and /kfc/nearby for finding the required identifier.

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