Get 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that no login is required and that the response includes menu, hours, offers, and discounts, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it lacks information on error behavior, rate limits, or handling of invalid restaurant IDs, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a single critical usage note. Every word contributes value; there is no repetition or filler.

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 tool has 5 parameters but no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating what is returned (categories, items, prices, hours, offers, discounts). It covers the core functionality and prerequisites, though it could add a note about response structure (e.g., presence of nested objects) or error cases. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 all parameter meanings are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only one piece of contextual value: that restaurant_id comes from search_restaurants. This does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific action ('Fetch a restaurant's full menu') with a defined resource (categories, items, prices) and additional data (opening hours, offers, discounts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_restaurants (search for restaurants) and get_menu_item_options (item-specific options), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit context on when to use this tool: after obtaining a restaurant `id` from search_restaurants. It also clarifies a key prerequisite (no login required). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., get_menu_item_options for item-level details), so it falls short of a 5.

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