get_venue_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says 'Fetches a restaurant menu' without mentioning return format, error cases, or how optional parameters behave. Given the presence of an output schema, some detail is expected, but the limited description leaves most behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. The phrasing around address is slightly awkward, but every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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 five parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool description covers the core inputs and links to search_venues, but it omits details about output format, optional parameter behavior, and how latitude/longitude should be provided together. This is adequate for a simple fetch tool but leaves some gaps.

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 description adds value by specifying allowed provider values ('wolt' or 'glovo'), the source of venue_id ('from search_venues results'), and the flexible address format ('lat,lon' or 'latitude+longitude'). However, it does not fully clarify the separate latitude and longitude parameters or distinguish required vs optional fields, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Fetches a restaurant menu' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_venues and search_items by focusing on the menu retrieval action.

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 provides context for usage by noting that venue_id comes from 'search_venues results', implying the correct sequence. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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