search_menu_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating 'Search', but fails to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The mention of searching 'by name or description' hints at query matching but lacks detail.

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 sentence, which is concise but arguably too brief for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action, but lacks key details about constraints or defaults.

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 complexity (4 params, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the primary function but omits details on parameters beyond 'query' and does not set expectations for filtering or output. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value description, yet the parameter gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially explains the 'query' parameter (matching name or description), while ignoring 'limit', 'zone_id', and 'available_only'. This leaves significant meaning uncovered for 3 of 4 parameters.

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 ('Search'), resource ('public AVAS menu items'), and scope ('across restaurants'). It specifies search criteria ('by name or description'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_menu' which targets a specific restaurant's 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 implies usage for cross-restaurant menu item searches by name/description, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. It gives adequate context but no exclusions or comparative advice.

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