uber_eats_menu_item_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys this is a read-only fetch ('Load one menu item'), which is implied. However, it doesn't clarify what customization options are included, whether options data differs from uber_eats_get_item_options, or any pagination/response behavior. The '(API)' suffix is unclear as to what it communicates behaviorally.

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 compact with a clear Args listing that adds param semantics efficiently. The '(API)' suffix and opening sentence are slightly redundant, but overall the text is tight and properly structured with front-loaded purpose.

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 explanation is not required. The 4 required params are all explained via the Args block and origin note, which is helpful. However, no sibling differentiation against uber_eats_get_item_options and no timing guidance leaves some gaps for a tool fetching customization options.

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 the origin/purpose of each UUID parameter in the Args block (store_uuid=restaurant store, section/subsection/item UUIDs from menu entries), adding meaning beyond the plain 'Uuid' titles in the schema. This is useful guidance for sourcing correct values.

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 'Load one menu item with customization options (API)' with a specific verb+resource, which clearly conveys the purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling uber_eats_get_item_options and uber_eats_restaurant_menu, but the phrase 'with customization options' hints at differentiation from a plain menu fetch.

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 notes that 'UUIDs come from uber_eats_restaurant_menu item entries' which implies a dependency/ordering for when to call this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling uber_eats_get_item_options, which sounds potentially related, and doesn't clarify when to prefer one over the other.

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