Vendor menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: one row per size/variation, descriptions truncated at 100 chars, and the existence of a 'categories' mode with dish counts. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the additions are 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and follow-up routing. Parenthetical asides are dense but each carries information; little waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the 'categories' variant, plus pagination and truncation behavior. The only loose end is the unclear 'categories' reference, which an agent may not know how to invoke.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's full_text explanation ('lifts the cut and the size cap') largely restates the schema, and the query/offset guidance is usage-level rather than adding new semantics. The mention of 'categories' is ambiguous since no such parameter exists in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a vendor's live menu') and immediately specifies the return granularity (one entry per size/variation) and fields (price, discount, stock). This is distinguishable from siblings like tf_search_dishes and tf_vendor_info without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use after tf_search_vendors / tf_restaurants', 'Then tf_vendor_info for fee and minimum order') and a purpose condition ('to pick dishes or confirm a price'). It does not, however, explicitly exclude or contrast with tf_search_dishes, which overlaps on the 'pick dishes' use case.

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