Audit user's LINE Rich Menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the priority logic, the silent gotcha about OA Manager overrides, and details about the return value including a Thai-language explanation. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with numbered steps, clear Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary sentences; every part adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the return object with fields, types, and explanations. Covers the priority chain, edge cases, and locale note, making it self-contained for an agent.

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 provides only 50% parameter descriptions (user_id documented, oa not). The description adds meaning by listing both parameters in the Args section and providing an explicit return structure with field descriptions and types, compensating for missing schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool inspects the rich-menu priority chain for a user. The description explicitly lists the three steps and distinguishes this tool from siblings like line_link_rich_menu or line_set_default_rich_menu by focusing on auditing rather than setting.

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?

Starts with a concrete problem scenario ('Why is user X seeing menu Y?'), which implies when to use. Explains the priority chain and flags a silent gotcha. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.

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