swiggy_restaurant_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: nested categories are flattened to one level with the parent's title and a subcategory field. It also notes that the response includes the same promotions block as /swiggy/restaurant. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only menu fetch, the disclosed flattening behavior is the most important non-obvious detail.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The flattening explanation is detailed but earns its place because it describes a non-obvious transformation. The final sentence about promotions is slightly redundant with the earlier mention of the restaurant summary, but overall it's well-structured.

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 read-only menu fetch with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure, the flattening behavior, and the promotions block. It doesn't describe pagination or error cases, but those are less critical for this tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for restaurant_id (from /swiggy/search's id field) and explains why latitude/longitude are required (Swiggy's own menu API), which is useful. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema, so 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get one Swiggy restaurant's menu with prices') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like swiggy_restaurant and swiggy_search. It also explains the return shape (menu grouped into categories, restaurant summary, promotions), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 when to use this tool (when you need a single restaurant's full menu with prices) and references the sibling swiggy_restaurant for the promotions block. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like swiggy_search, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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