kfc_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses return grouping, category examples, entry types (product, bundle, variant), price format in USD cents and decimal dollars, optional images, and channel-specific pricing. It also explicitly corrects the assumption of a national default, adding non-obvious 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 compact and information-dense, with the main purpose first, then the expected return payload, then pricing caveats. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of schema labels or filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the return payload sufficiently: categories, entry types, prices, image behavior, and channel nuance. A minor gap is that exact accepted channel value strings are not listed beyond 'WEB' and a delivery-marketplace versus web example.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema for the channel parameter, explaining that prices can genuinely differ by channel and that web ordering is the default. Store-number semantics remain mostly covered by the schema's reference to /kfc/stores or /kfc/nearby.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one KFC restaurant's full priced menu.' It also explains that the result is grouped into categories and distinguishes the tool from sibling store/promotion tools. The one-restaurant scope is clear from the first sentence.

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?

Provides clear context: this tool returns a specific restaurant's full priced menu for a specific order channel. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5. The description is not misleading and implies when it should be used.

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