Get menu item options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that no login is required and the verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, disclosing the auth requirement. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, response format, or rate limits, which would be valuable without 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?

The description consists of two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds usage context and auth requirement. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words.

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 simple fetch tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, trigger condition, and auth requirement. It does not describe the response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds domain context (e.g., single menu item, has_options) but does not add syntax-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'customization/variation options for a single menu item', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_restaurant_menu that return a full menu. It also references the `has_options` flag, providing concrete context for when this tool applies.

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 explicitly states it is needed to build a valid cart line for items where `has_options` is true, giving a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context provides sufficient guidance on when to invoke it.

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