get_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes the basic function and parameters without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The note about 'v4 endpoint' adds minimal transparency.

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 relatively concise, with the main action in the first sentence. It briefly explains parameters, though the note about get_restaurant could be streamlined. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the primary return type (full menu) and the optional parameters. However, it lacks details on the output schema (though provided separately), does not clarify what 'availability' means in terms of latitude/longitude, and omits any mention of authentication or error handling.

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 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains the meaning of restaurant_id (Grubhub restaurant ID) and indicates latitude/longitude are optional for availability. This adds value beyond the schema but does not fully detail all parameter constraints or formats.

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 retrieves the full menu including categories, items, and prices. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_menu_item by emphasizing 'full menu' and mentions it is similar to get_restaurant, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 mentions it is the same as get_restaurant, which hints at usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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