toast_get_menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains merge semantics for `source=both` (online listing wins, `sources` array), that duplicated items appear under each group so `total_items` counts listings not distinct items, that prices are dollar floats, and that modifier prices are excluded. These are exactly the surprises an agent would otherwise hit at runtime.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then parameter notes; nearly every clause carries information. The density is high (dollar conversion, dedupe advice, modifier caveat all in one block), but nothing is redundant enough to cut cleanly.

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?

With no output schema and six params, the description carries most of the load and does so well, including how to count items correctly. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say whether `limit` truncates items only or whole groups, and it doesn't state whether truncation is signaled in the response.

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 high (83%) so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the two hardest params: `restaurant` accepts a GUID or any link containing one, and `source` semantics are spelled out beyond the bare enum. It also clarifies price units and search scope for `query`. Only `view` and `limit` behavior are left to 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 and resource and immediately describes the returned hierarchy (menus → groups → items), so an agent can distinguish it from toast_get_order or toast_find_restaurants without opening the schema. It also names the sibling tool for the one case that could confuse (bare shortUrl → toast_resolve_restaurant).

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 `source` paragraph gives clear conditional guidance (online = what's sold online, pos = full register menu, both = merged), and the `restaurant` note tells the agent when to call toast_resolve_restaurant first. It does not explicitly exclude cases where toast_get_order or toast_find_restaurants would be better, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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