get_menu_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is read-only, whether authentication is needed (the sibling login/logout tools imply a session requirement), what happens with an invalid item_id, or how availability varies by location. Only the latitude/longitude 'for availability' note hints at behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact argument list with no filler or redundancy. Slightly expanded usage context would have been worth more than the terse '(default standard)' restatement of the schema default.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is unnecessary. All five inputs are covered and the tool is a simple read, so the description is nearly sufficient; only error/permission behavior and the relationship to get_menu are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all five parameters are explained, including the order_type enum values ('standard, catering') and its default, plus the optionality and purpose of latitude/longitude. This adds real meaning the schema lacks, though it gives no format constraints for the IDs.

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+resource ('Get details for a specific menu item') and enumerates the returned content (options, add-ons, pricing), which separates it from the sibling list tool get_menu. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is available but not made explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after get_menu or search_restaurants, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a valid restaurant_id from a prior call), and no case where another tool is preferable. The Args block documents parameters, not usage context.

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