wolt_restaurant_menu_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses Wolt's own in-venue search, that a keyword is required, that no-match returns an empty list rather than an error, and enumerates the return fields (name, description, price, dietary tags, image, barcode, pack size, per-unit price). This is comprehensive and 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 detailed but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose, then explaining the rationale, then enumerating return fields and edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant or fluff.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, return content, and edge cases. It also explains the distinction from the sibling tool, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value beyond that: it specifies that slug comes from /wolt/search's slug field (provenance), that query matches against item names and descriptions (matching scope), and that limit defaults to 30 and maxes at 100. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Search one Wolt restaurant or store's menu by keyword') with a clear resource (menu) and scope (one venue). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling /wolt/restaurant/menu tool by explaining that the alternative returns categories without items for large stores, establishing this tool as the unique way to reach item-level data.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: it names the alternative (/wolt/restaurant/menu) and explains why this tool is needed for large grocery/retail stores, noting the alternative returns no items. It also mentions cross-language matching, which helps an agent decide when this is appropriate.

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