get_store_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 states the tool retrieves a 'full menu with items and prices', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid store IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's complexity (a read operation with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., structure of items/prices), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'storeId' from 'search_restaurants'). This leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('storeId' and optional 'menuId') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool fetches menu data, which is redundant with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('store's full menu with items and prices'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_restaurants' or 'order_history', which might also involve menu-related operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a store ID from search results), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'search_restaurants' (which might return menu snippets). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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