Опции блюда

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that required groups are marked `required: true` and explains how the tool fits into the ordering flow. It stops short of detailing error behavior or exact response structure, but offers solid behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

With only two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, when to use it, and how to apply the result with add_to_cart. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (`item` and `restaurant`), so the schema already documents them. The description adds contextual usage (e.g., `hasOptions`) but does not deepen parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns groups of required/optional dish options with variants and prices, using a specific verb and resource. It also gives examples (taste, size, side dish, additives) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_menu and add_to_cart.

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 explicitly says to call this for items with `hasOptions` before `add_to_cart`, which provides both a clear when and an implicit when-not (items without hasOptions). It also explains the workflow: show options to the user and pass them to add_to_cart via `options`.

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