mcdonalds_restaurant_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses per-channel pricing differences, channel-exclusive items, inclusion of curated substitutes/add-ons with price deltas, and explicitly excludes plain entree/side substitution because McDonald's doesn't publish a curated list. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 lengthy but every sentence contributes: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains channel behavior, coverage, and prerequisites. It's efficient given the complexity, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies what is returned, what is not covered, the source of the store_id, and the US-only constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 store_id with its source (from /mcdonalds/restaurants) and type. The description reiterates this but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states. With 100% schema coverage, 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 retrieves a single McDonald's restaurant's priced menu, listing exact contents (item name, image, eat-in/pickup/delivery prices) and explicitly distinguishes it as the only endpoint in the family that publishes prices. This differentiates it from siblings like mcdonalds_menu and mcdonalds_item.

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?

It explicitly states this is the only McDonald's endpoint that publishes prices, giving a direct when-to-use signal, and notes the US-only scope and the prerequisite store_id from /mcdonalds/restaurants. This is clear, actionable guidance for an agent.

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