uber_eats_get_item_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but does not disclose state changes, whether it requires an active session/page context, rate limits, or what happens when the item has no options. Being a read-only inspection tool, some transparency is implied but not explicit about side-effect-free 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?

Reasonably concise with front-loaded purpose statement, an informative data enumeration, a usage note, and brief parameter descriptions. The parameter details are useful and not wasted, though the mention of 'when API provides them' is slightly verbose. Overall tight and well-structured.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return-value documentation is partially delegated. However, the description doesn't clarify the relationship with menu_item_detail, require/verify preconditions (page state, being on a restaurant page), or explain the pick_one/min/max semantics in practical terms. Given a moderately complex tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage of parameters, it is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 compensate. It explains item_name (menu item to inspect) and restaurant_url (optional if not already on page), adding context about the URL's optionality tied to page state. However, it doesn't explain what happens if restaurant_url is omitted when not on the page, and doesn't add format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Get customization options for a menu item') and enumerates the specific data returned (sizes, extras, required choices, required, min_permitted, max_permitted, pick_one). It distinguishes from sibling tools like uber_eats_menu_item_detail and uber_eats_restaurant_menu by focusing specifically on customization/options, though it doesn't explicitly come across as distinct from the immediately related ones.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Call this before add_to_cart if the item has options/modifiers.' This gives explicit when-to-use context and ties it to a specific workflow step relative to sibling add_to_cart. However, it doesn't address when NOT to use it (e.g., when item has no modifiers) or explicitly name alternative tools like menu_item_detail.

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