menu_modifiers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral trait. The phrase only names the topic, so an agent cannot infer operation semantics.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks a verb and reads as a fragment, so it is not a well-structured tool description. Every word is potentially useful but the absence of an action makes it ineffective.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 3 undocumented parameters, the description should explain the return value, the meaning of the parameters, and the expected behavior. It offers none of this, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It provides none of this: limit, fields, and offset are not mentioned or connected to the tool's behavior, leaving the agent without any context for these parameters.

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 'Grupos de modificadores y productos asociados' is a noun phrase identifying the resource (modifier groups and associated products) but lacks any verb indicating the action (e.g., list, get, create). It provides some subject matter context but does not clearly state what the tool does, making it hard to distinguish from a generic query or mutation tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like menu_products or menu_recipes. The description does not mention alternatives, use cases, or conditions that would help an agent select this tool appropriately.

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