menu

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful behavior: without keeping catalog resident, with no query lists the catalog, and includes a state_changing field in returned rows. This goes beyond the annotation by describing the read-only nature and output semantics. Solid but not exhaustive (no mention of auth or rate limits), hence a 4.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the purpose, then immediately give output format and a pairing tip. Zero fluff; every sentence earns its place. The parenthetical 'menu(query?)' is compact and informative.

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 it's a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (compact rows with specific fields), how to invoke it with or without query, and how to follow up with 'order'. It doesn't mention the limit parameter but that is trivially covered by the schema. It could mention error conditions or an example, but for a simple lookup tool this is quite complete. A 4 is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing the query param in shorthand 'menu(query?)' and explicitly stating that with no query it lists the catalog, which clarifies default behavior beyond the schema's 'Optional' note. This is a meaningful addition, pushing it to a 4.

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 'Discover' and the resource 'catalog actions', and specifies exactly what it returns (compact rows with fields). It also explains the no-query behavior. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from all five siblings, but the pairing with 'order' gives context. Slightly below a 5 because it doesn't enumerate alternatives beyond 'order'.

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 explicitly says to pair with 'order' to dispatch an action, which implies when to use menu (discovery) vs order (execution). It also explains the no-query listing behavior. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it relative to other siblings like 'route' or 'set_tool_tier'. Clear enough guidance for the most relevant alternative.

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