list_menu_items

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the role requirement and the fact that it returns all menu items including inactive and unavailable ones. It also explicitly states 'Read-only', reinforcing the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions are present.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and permission level, then provide the ID source. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or tangential information.

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 list tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers role requirements, the source of the ID, and the full scope of items returned. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are minor and likely covered by the output schema.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the restaurant_id parameter (100% coverage), including its source. The description repeats 'Get restaurant_id from list_school_restaurants', which is redundant but consistent. It does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Lists'), the resource ('menu items'), and the scope ('for a restaurant, including inactive and unavailable ones'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_menu_item, delete_menu_item, and get_daily_menu, which either modify or show only currently available items. The 'ADMIN:' prefix further signals its privileged nature.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: requires pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator role, and instructs to obtain restaurant_id from list_school_restaurants. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_daily_menu or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of fully routing the agent to the right tool in every scenario.

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