wolt_restaurant_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by explaining the non-obvious loading_strategy behavior, partial vs. full semantics, the anonymous API source, and the single-call nature. It stops short of covering error/rate-limit behavior, but the core operational traits are transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, response contents, loading_strategy, fallback route, and venue-type expectations. It is longer than average, but the length is justified by the genuinely non-obvious partial-strategy behavior.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the response contains, how to interpret loading_strategy, and how to recover items in the partial case. It does not detail restaurant summary fields or error cases, but an agent has enough context to call and interpret 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?

The only parameter, slug, is already fully described in the input schema ('from /wolt/search's slug field'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Wolt restaurant or store's menu,' and details what is returned (categories, items, summary, loading_strategy). It also implicitly differentiates from the sibling menu-search tool by describing the partial/full loading strategy and when the sibling would be needed.

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 clearly states the intended use — retrieve one venue's menu — and gives situational guidance for using /wolt/restaurant/menu/search when loading_strategy is partial. It does not explicitly say when to prefer wolt_restaurant for summary-only needs, but the context provided is strong.

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