taco_bell_store_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely rises to it. It discloses that the response is edge-cacheable for up to 24 hours and should be treated as a 'recent snapshot' rather than a live per-second signal, and it highlights unique store-level behavior such as items being absent or hidden and the exclusive happy-hour window. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-mutation behavior or edge-case error behavior, but as a 'Get' endpoint with a single input, the disclosed staleness and store-scoping are the most important behavioral traits.

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?

Although the description is long, it is densely informative and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent clause adds distinct value: return fields, store-scoping difference, happy-hour exclusivity, cache ttl, routing to sibling endpoints, and store-number source. There is no filler or repetition that could be cut without losing useful guidance.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the call returns, how it differs from siblings, how fresh the data is, where to get the required store_number, and where to go for a related need (serving-time windows). Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single store_number parameter as 'Taco Bell store number, from /taco-bell/stores.' The description reinforces the same source ('Store numbers come from GET /taco-bell/stores') but does not add new syntactic or formatting detail beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 Taco Bell restaurant's full live catalog in a single call.' It clearly enumerates what is returned (every category and item, price, calories, product/food type, image, per-store availability) and distinguishes itself from GET /taco-bell/menu and GET /taco-bell/store. An agent can immediately tell this is the store-scoped full-menu tool rather than the national-category or serving-time endpoints.

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 explicitly contrasts this endpoint with alternatives: WHERE the national menu endpoint 'returns one category's items', this one is store-scoped, and for serving-time windows it says to use GET /taco-bell/store. It also tells the agent where store numbers come from (GET /taco-bell/stores). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without requiring inference.

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