Get Crave.js implementation guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that this is informational documentation, but does not reveal additional behavioral nuance, so it lands at the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The first sentence front-loads the scope and contents; the second gives clear action guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-enum-parameter tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool is, what it contains, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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% and the enum values are described. The description adds value by mapping each enum to a concrete guide topic ('SDK setup', 'menu display', 'checkout flow', 'bulk menu import format'), helping the agent pick the right topic without additional research.

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 names the specific resource ('Crave storefront implementation guidance') and lists the exact guide topics: SDK setup, menu display, checkout flow, and bulk menu import format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_onboarding_flow or check_storefront_readiness.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Read the relevant guide before writing storefront code.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing and purpose are clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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