search_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output ('Returns matching items with descriptions and prices'), which adds transparency. However, it omits details about search matching behavior (e.g., substring vs. exact match), handling of no results, or category filter semantics. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple search tool.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. The action and result are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, input scope, and return content. It lacks explicit usage context (e.g., when to use during ordering), but the tool is straightforward enough that the information provided is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% (both query and category have descriptions). The description's phrase 'by name or keyword' merely reiterates what the schema already states for query. No additional parameter-level meaning is added, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'Chick-fil-A menu items' and specifies the search method ('by name or keyword'). It also states the return value ('matching items with descriptions and prices'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_nutrition or find_locations.

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 clearly implies the use case: searching for menu items to see descriptions and prices. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use get_nutrition for nutritional details). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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