List Menu Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields and filtering capabilities. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 extremely concise: two sentences in English and the same in Spanish. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, features, and return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and full annotation, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, search/filter support, and return fields. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but those are detailed in the schema. Slightly lacking in completeness but still solid.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions free-text search and active/inactive filter, aligning with params 'q' and 'isActive', but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the kitchen menu catalog, with specific features like free-text search and active/inactive filtering, and explicitly lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_products) by targeting the kitchen menu catalog.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. While the purpose is clear, the lack of comparative or contextual usage instructions limits its helpfulness.

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