menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'No purchase' usefully discloses that this is a non-transactional read operation, and it lists the visible menu data, but it does not mention authentication needs, defaults, rate limits, or failure behavior; the output schema covers return values.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It puts the core action first and then adds only relevant scope and a non-purchase caveat.

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?

For a simple read-only menu tool with an output schema, the description adequately states purpose and included content. However, given zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, it leaves the two input parameters and usage routing under-explained.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'day' and 'canteen' parameters. It never mentions either parameter or the default canteen, adding no meaning beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List menu') and names the included content: sold-out dishes, soup variants, price, and burza deadlines. The phrase 'no purchase' also distinguishes it from transactional siblings such as buy_meal and orders.

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 gives an implied exclusion ('no purchase'), which helps separate browsing from ordering. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings like buy_meal, meal_history, or minutkas, nor how day/canteen choices affect use.

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