mcdonalds_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the return payload, notes that combo meals may lack nutrient lists, and states that prices are not available on this surface — all beyond what any schema would convey.

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 information-dense but every sentence carries essential details — return contents, parameter relationships, market constraints, and boundary cases. There is no fluff or duplicated schema content, and the key facts are presented in a logical order.

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 fully describes the expected returns, input dependencies, and edge cases. It covers the source of item IDs, market-specificity, combo meal behavior, and pricing limitations, so the agent has enough context to call and interpret results.

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?

Even though the schema covers all parameters, the description adds critical semantics by explaining that item ids are market-specific and demanding the same country be passed. It also clarifies the available market coverage and hints at the relationship between the two parameters, which the schema alone does not provide.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one McDonald's item's nutrition') and clearly delineates the singular item granularity from sibling tools like menu or item list. It itemizes the returned content, which differentiates it from other list/category tools without needing to name them.

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 on where item IDs come from (GET /mcdonalds/menu) and the requirement to pass matching country, which directly guides when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the usage boundaries are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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