query-meals

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

The '只读' claim merely restates readOnlyHint=true, earning no extra credit. However, '演示数据，虚构，不连麦当劳官方服务' is genuine disclosure beyond the annotations: it warns the agent that results are mock data and must not be presented as real McDonald's information. No rate limits or failure modes are described, but for a read-only demo query the added fidelity is meaningful.

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?

Three short clauses with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the output-to-input linkage and the demo-data caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (code, name, unit price with unit). All three required parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the demo/fictional disclaimer closes the remaining trust gap for a read-only tool.

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 every parameter (storeCode, orderType, beType) already documents its source and enum meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'code' refers to the response field, not to any parameter, so it adds nothing to parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (查询指定门店的菜单) plus the exact return payload (code、名称、单价，单位元), and ties its output key to the downstream flow by naming 试算 (calculate-price) and ordering. An agent can distinguish it from query-nearby-stores, calculate-price, and the coupon/time siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Frames the tool as the prerequisite step for ordering and price calculation ('下单和试算时 items 里的 productCode 就是这里的 code'), which tells the agent when this call is needed and what it feeds. It gives no explicit exclusions or negative guidance, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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