get_menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The added has_choices caveat is genuinely useful but is workflow guidance rather than behavioral disclosure about the call itself (e.g., no mention of pagination despite an output schema).

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 tight sentences plus a caveat, front-loaded with the core resource and scope. No filler, though the final note reads as an abrupt fragment.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the key inputs and the downstream workflow dependency. It is complete enough for an agent to call and chain correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing to search_menu.

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 description must carry the load. It does explain the origin of store_id (from list_restaurants) and clarifies that category is optional and limited to a single value, which adds meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the menu of one restaurant, optionally narrowed to a single category. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_restaurants (source of store_id) and search_menu, though it doesn't name search_menu explicitly as the alternative for querying dishes.

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?

It gives concrete context: store_id comes from list_restaurants, and products flagged has_choices=true require get_product_options before add_to_cart. That is real cross-tool routing, though no explicit 'when not to use this' vs search_menu is offered.

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