Меню ресторана

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility. It reveals that output is compact by default to fit large menus (200+ items), that `full: true` adds descriptions, and that items with `hasOptions` require option selection—all useful behavioral nuances beyond a simple read.

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?

Three sentences deliver a lot of information, but the second is a long run-on with embedded guidance. No superfluous words; the structure is front-loaded with main 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?

The description explains return organization (grouped by categories), default compactness, and the caveat about large menus. It omits explicit field details, but mentions `hasOptions` which is a key field. Given no output schema, it's reasonably complete for a menu retrieval tool.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a hint about restaurant input from search_restaurants and restates the effect of `full`, but doesn't substantially enhance parameter understanding 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 identifies the tool's function: returning the full restaurant menu grouped by categories. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying input from search_restaurants and mentioning the `hasOptions` behavior that connects to get_item_options/add_product.

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 explicit guidance: use search_restaurants to obtain the restaurant URL/slug, warns against premature 'not found' conclusions until all categories are reviewed, and explains the `full: true` parameter and `hasOptions` requirement for adding items. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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