getMenuItem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the return format ('status:success, message containing one lean-shaped record') and behavior on missing (empty or 404). It also explains the lean-by-default keep-list and the effect of include_extras, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use when, see also, returns). It front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy ('Get a single menu item - Fetch a single menuitem record') could be trimmed, but overall it is informative and not excessively verbose 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 lack of an output schema, the description explains the return format and not-found behavior. It also covers the difference from the list sibling and details the optional parameter. This is sufficient for a simple read tool with clear metadata.

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 schema has 50% coverage (include_extras described, menu_item_id not). The description states 'Required: menu_item_id' and explains the include_extras parameter in detail, including what fields are restored. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for the undocumented menu_item_id parameter.

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 states 'Get a single menu item - Fetch a single menuitem record.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'listMenuItems' by noting that this single-record fetch does not apply the empty-link filter, making the purpose very clear.

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 'Use when: editing one specific menu entry.' It also provides a 'See also' reference to listMenuItems for enumeration. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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