restaurant_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet says nothing about whether this is a safe read, whether the menu is paginated, whether prices/availability are included, or whether results are localized. Only the most obvious trait (a read) is implied by 'Get'.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that nothing beyond the core action is communicated.

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-param lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least say what is returned (sections, items, prices) and how to source the ID. Neither is present, so an agent cannot predict the response shape.

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 0%, so the single required restaurant_id is undocumented everywhere. The description does not say where the ID comes from (e.g., search_restaurants/restaurant_detail) or what form it takes, leaving the only parameter ungrounded.

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 a restaurant's menu list'), which clearly separates it from restaurant_reviews, restaurant_photos and restaurant_detail by implication. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus restaurant_detail (which may already include menu data) or how to obtain the restaurant_id. The agent must infer the call context entirely.

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