List Restaurant Menu Items (Admin)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns inactive and unavailable items, requires pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator role, and serves as a source of menu_item_id values for subsequent operations. These details go beyond the 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 is information-dense and well-structured: it opens with the admin catalog scope, immediately handles the key sibling distinction, then covers downstream use, authorization, and parameter sourcing. Every sentence contributes unique value and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, scope, alternative tool, role requirement, and parameter provenance. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is already handled elsewhere, so no critical information is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents restaurant_id as coming from list_school_restaurants. The description repeats this provenance, reinforcing it, but does not add new semantic detail about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'lists the full menu-item catalog for a restaurant, including inactive and unavailable items.' It clearly distinguishes itself from get_lunch_menu by explicitly stating this is the catalog, not the orderable menu for a date. This provides strong sibling differentiation.

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 states when to use this tool versus get_lunch_menu, names downstream tools that consume its output (update_restaurant_menu_item, archive_restaurant_menu_item, schedule_lunch_menu_item), and gives the prerequisite source for the restaurant_id parameter (list_school_restaurants). It also states the required role, leaving no ambiguity about eligibility.

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