Restaurant menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious pricing semantics beyond the annotations: final_price = price - discount and packaging applied per item at checkout. It does not mention rate limits or latency, but the added domain context is substantive.

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?

Two compact sentences: the capability statement is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite, with the pricing formula as a short trailing note. No filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described beyond the field summary given. The description supplies the prerequisite chain and pricing interpretation an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (vendor_code, lat, long, limit, query) are already documented in the schema, including the vendor-code format and the Iran lat/long bounds. The description reinforces the vendor_code provenance but adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one restaurant's menu) and enumerates the payload fields returned: price, discount, packaging fee and availability. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like food_search or food_order_costs.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: 'Use after picking a restaurant (vendor code from food_search / food_restaurants).' That is a clear precondition, though it offers no exclusions or contrast against alternatives such as food_find_cheapest or food_party_deals.

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