zaxbys_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that cost 0 is expected due to store-specific pricing and that many items price through customizations, not base cost. It also clarifies the data scope (national reference, not store-priced). It doesn't mention potential response size or performance, but it thoroughly explains data semantics, which is more critical here.

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 well-structured and front-loads the main purpose, then details the content and explains the pricing nuance. Each sentence adds value, and it's not overly verbose despite being detailed. It could be slightly more concise, but the length is justified by the important caveats about cost 0 and store pricing.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description explains the return content well: categories, products, descriptions, calories, images, and a full customization tree with price deltas. It also addresses the expected cost 0 behavior, which is crucial for correct interpretation. It doesn't specify the exact response format (e.g., JSON structure), but it gives enough for an agent to understand what to expect. Overall, it's comprehensive for a menu tool with no parameters.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't add anything about parameters because none exist. It correctly focuses on the return structure and data meaning instead.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting Zaxby's national reference menu. It specifies the resource (national reference menu), what it returns (categories, products, descriptions, calories, images, customization tree), and differentiates from store-specific data by noting it's not store-priced. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zaxbys_store and zaxbys_nearby.

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 explains when to use this tool: for national reference menu data, and implies alternatives by stating that real pricing requires a signed-in ordering session not available here. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like zaxbys_store, but the context makes the distinction clear. It could be more explicit about when to prefer store-specific tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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