zomato_restaurant_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that prices are frequently absent due to login gating, explains the category naming fallback logic, and describes the item fields (name, description, veg/non-veg flag, image, price). This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs to set expectations about incomplete data.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary caveats about category naming and price availability. Every sentence earns its place, though the price-gating explanation is slightly long and could be tightened without losing value.

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, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is returned (menu grouped into categories, restaurant summary), the category naming logic, the item fields, and the known data-quality caveat about prices. An agent can call this tool correctly and interpret the response without additional context.

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% and the single parameter 'url' is already described as a canonical public Zomato restaurant URL. The description adds value by specifying the URL should come from /zomato/search's url field, which is a useful provenance hint beyond the schema. Since there is only one parameter and the schema already covers it, the description's marginal addition is modest but meaningful.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one Zomato restaurant's menu'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like zomato_restaurant and zomato_search by specifying it returns the menu grouped into categories plus a restaurant summary. It also explains the category naming convention, which adds precision beyond the tool name.

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 implies usage context: it is for retrieving a single restaurant's menu, and the parameter description says the URL comes from /zomato/search's url field, which provides a clear workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like zomato_restaurant, but the single-restaurant scope and the search-to-menu flow are clear enough.

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