wingstop_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently describes the output semantics: every category, variant granularity for standalone vs. size/flavor families, calorie ranges, and store-level context like currency, tax rate, and prep lead time. The word "Get" also clearly signals a read-only operation, though it does not mention auth, errors, or explicit no-side-effect language.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds useful detail about variant and store-level pricing. It is slightly dense and repeats the path-sourcing information already present in the schema, so it earns a strong but not perfect score.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a solid job of explaining what the agent will receive: categorized menu, variants, prices, descriptions, calorie ranges, and store-level context. It is complete enough for effective use, though it omits things like error behavior or response shape, which would have pushed it higher.

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% and both parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description mostly restates the `path` sourcing logic and does not add substantive new meaning about the parameters themselves, so the 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 is concrete: "Get one Wingstop store's priced menu" names the exact action, resource, and scope, and then enumerates what the menu contains. It clearly distinguishes this from directory, store, flavors, and nearby siblings by anchoring on a single store's full priced menu.

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 gives a clear dependency chain: it tells the agent that the required `path` comes from `/wingstop/directory` entries with `is_store` true or from a `/wingstop/store` response. This is more than implied usage and provides a clear context of when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly enumerate sibling-based when-not-to-use alternatives.

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