analyze_menu_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it clarifies that costs are theoretical recipe costs rather than measured purchases, and that contribution excludes labor, rent, fees, waste and other operating costs. This scoping is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to interpret results correctly; only rate limits/error behavior are absent.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact required-columns block and two clarifying caveats; every sentence earns its place. The 'these columns' phrasing wraps an inline list rather than a markdown list, a minor formatting nit.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it adds a useful summary of the return shape plus caveats on cost basis and contribution scope. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only sibling disambiguation and error/limit behavior are missing.

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% and the single parameter has no schema-level description, so the description must compensate. It does: it specifies the exact required columns (item, selling_price, ingredient_cost, units_sold) for csv_text, giving concrete meaning the schema lacks.

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 ('Analyze menu economics from CSV text') and names the required input format, so the agent knows exactly what the tool consumes and produces. It does not differentiate from the sibling calculate_menu_item_metrics, which keeps it from a 5.

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 effectively defines the precondition for use by listing the exact required CSV columns, which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, it never states when to prefer it over calculate_menu_item_metrics or any exclusion criteria, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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