get_menu

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: menu results may be capped, filter helps manage large menus, and returns menu_id needed for cart adds. It also mentions store_is_open and orderability. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key returns. The second sentence adds a critical usage detail (capping and filter) succinctly.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure: menu_id, store_is_open, items with multiple fields. It also covers the limitation (capped menus) and how to handle it (filter). For a menu retrieval tool, this is comprehensive.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that filter is a case-insensitive substring on name/description/category and that menu_id is needed for cart adds. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the basic schema.

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 verb 'Fetch' clearly indicates the action, and 'restaurant's menu' identifies the resource. It explains what is returned (menu_id, store_is_open, items with fields) and distinguishes from siblings like get_restaurant_item_details by focusing on the full 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 states it fetches a menu and notes that large menus are capped, suggesting use of the filter parameter. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context implies it's for menu retrieval and the filter is for narrowing. Sibling tools like get_restaurant_item_details are for item details, not full menus.

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