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. It states that the tool returns a compact list, organized by category, and includes sold-out status. This conveys the read-only nature implicitly via 'Get' and describes the output structure. However, it does not explicitly mention that no modifications occur or any authentication/rate-limit requirements, but for a simple get operation this is sufficient. It adds useful behavioral context about the return format and status flags.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned concisely. Every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 get-menu tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to expect in the response (code, name, price, sold-out status), how to use the result (item code for cart), and when to use an alternative. There is no missing information an agent would need to correctly invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, restaurant_id, which is described as 'The vendor code (e.g. 'p7nl')'. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('the menu for a restaurant'), and the organization ('by category'). It also specifies the return contents (item code, name, price, sold-out status) and differentiates from get_item_details by indicating that tool is for toppings/customizations. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Get the menu') and when to use an alternative ('Use get_item_details if you need topping/customization options'). It also provides a follow-up action ('Use the item code when adding to cart'), guiding the agent toward the correct workflow. This is explicit usage guidance.

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