opentable_get_menu

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds substantial behavior: menus return bounded pages of whole items, external menu_url links are returned but never fetched, and prices are OpenTable's published values rather than a live quote. It also enumerates the status outcomes (available, menu_not_found, external_only, not_available), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Dense but every clause carries information, and the caveats about external links and non-live prices are valuable. It is slightly mis-front-loaded: the opening sentence covers a pagination edge case rather than stating the tool's core purpose.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return envelope (available_menus, status), the field inventory, pagination contract, and identifier flexibility. There is no output schema, yet the return shape is still communicated, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds footing by stating that pagination must reuse the same menu_name/section_name filters and that view=full without paging is uncapped, which the schema does not say. The rest (menu_name case-insensitive matching, section_name selecting one section) largely restates the schema.

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 published menus for a restaurant) and enumerates the payload (sections, dishes, prices, variations, currency, provider, timestamps). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it accepts the same identifier as opentable_get_restaurant, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: how to resume via pagination.next_offset with the same filters, when section_name/menu_name should be supplied, and that view=full without paging is uncapped. It never explicitly contrasts with a sibling (e.g., find_slots for availability), but the usage conditions are well specified.

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