search_menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond them: matching is case-insensitive and spans all restaurants. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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 tightly written sentence with the resource and match fields front-loaded; no filler to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter lookup. The description covers the essentials; only cross-sibling routing guidance 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 0% and the single parameter 'query' is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by defining what the query is matched against (name, description, category) and that matching is case-insensitive, which is real semantic value.

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 (search) and resource (restaurants' products) plus the fields matched (name, description, category). An agent can distinguish it from get_menu or list_restaurants, though the description never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 prefer this over get_menu, list_restaurants, or get_product_options. The keyword-search framing implies a lookup use case, but the agent is left to infer the boundary with the full-listing siblings.

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