get_restaurant_menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: results 'may be partial', implying incompleteness that the agent should account for. It does not explain what causes partiality or how to obtain a complete result.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the partiality caveat. Efficient, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits the meaning of store_id and the relationship between 'default store menu' and other menu-related siblings, leaving a modest gap for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single store_id parameter, which is only constrained by a digit pattern. The description never explains what store_id refers to or how 'default store' relates to it, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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: reads the default store menu feed, plus category metadata and loaded menu items. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_menu_item_options and search_restaurants, though 'default store menu' is not contrasted with any other menu variant.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_menu_item_options or search_restaurants. The only guidance is the implicit caveat 'May be partial', which warns of incompleteness but does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool.

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