menu__calculate_combo_price

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the incorrectlyFilledGroups edge case and the MCP server rate limit (10 requests/60s) with caching advice. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a critical edge case, ID sources in a compact mapping, and a throttling note. No unnecessary repetition, and the most important 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?

The description covers the key operational details (edge case, throttling, ID sources) but omits the response format entirely. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the successful response contains beyond the price being zero in the error case. It also doesn't mention required fields, though those are in the 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping each ID field to its source tool (comboGroupId, comboId, comboSourceId → menu__get_combos_info; organizationId → organizations__get_organizations; productSizeId → menu__get_nomenclature). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't explain the overall request structure or nested items.

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 tool calculates combo price based on items, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like menu__get_combos_info by focusing on price calculation rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a conditional outcome (price = 0 when incorrectlyFilledGroups is not empty) and ID source mappings, which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over other menu tools or mention any exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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