meican_show_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are grouped by section and that dish_id values are needed, but does not describe other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a key usage tip. No extraneous information.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, output structure (dishes grouped by section), and a usage hint. However, it could elaborate on what 'meal session' means or the target_time parameter's role. Still, it covers the essential points well.

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 description coverage is 67%, meaning the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only provides a usage hint about dish_id. With moderate coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('Show') and resource ('one restaurant's full menu for a meal session') and distinguishes from siblings by noting that dish_id values from this output are needed for placing an order.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('You need `dish_id` values from here to place an order'), implying it should be used before ordering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling context provides sufficient differentiation.

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