search_menu_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns matching items with name, description, price, and category, which gives useful output context. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like read-only safety, pagination, or result limiting, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the action and resource front-loaded. Every word adds value: it states the search capability and the return fields, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose and return structure, and the schema covers parameter details. A minor gap is not explicitly noting the optional nature of the category filter, but this is already clear in the schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself fully documents the 'query' and 'category' parameters, so no compensation is needed.

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 tool's function: 'Search Wendy's menu items by name, category, or keyword.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('menu items'), and the scope is defined. It is distinct from siblings like get_item_nutrition and find_nearby_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 implies when to use the tool—whenever a menu item search is needed—but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks references to sibling tools for differentiated use cases, so guidance is purely implied.

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