get_menu_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('fetch') without claiming side effects. However, it adds no detail about error behavior, return format, or any prerequisites beyond the parameter IDs. For a simple getter this is acceptable but minimal.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is zero wasted wording, and the information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter getter with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does and what identifiers are needed. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return value (e.g., 'Returns the menu item object'), but this is easily inferred.

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%, with both menuId and menuItemId thoroughly described including examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Fetch a specific menu item by ID from a menu' uses a specific verb ('fetch'), identifies the resource ('menu item'), and scopes it by ID and menu. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_menu (which fetches a menu) and get_menus (which lists menus), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tool name and description imply it is for retrieving a single menu item by ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the decision to the agent based purely on the name/description pattern.

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