menu__get_nomenclature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context: delta-sync mechanism (start_revision=0 for full, subsequent revisions), behavior when revision matches (empty lists), iiko limits (5 orgs, once per minute), and MCP throttling (1 request/60s) with a caching recommendation. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints. It does not mention return structure, but that is less critical for a read-only operation.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, then explains delta sync, then provides limits and source guidance. Every sentence carries essential information with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 (delta sync, rate limits, caching) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key operational details. It explains the revision mechanism, what happens when unchanged, and throttling rules. It does not describe the response payload structure, but for a read-only nomenclature tool with a clear content scope, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 thoroughly describes both parameters: startRevision (use 0 for first, then previous revision) and organizationId (can be obtained from organizations operation). The description only repeats start_revision=0 and mentions organizationId source, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the description contributes minimal parameter insight.

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 returns organization nomenclature (groups, products, sizes), which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like menu__get_external_menu_by_id and menu__get_stop_lists by focusing on the organization's internal menu structure. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 operational guidance (delta synchronization, rate limits, and where to get organizationId) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention other menu tools or exclusion conditions. The guidance is about how to use, not when to select, so it falls short of a clear usage guideline.

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