Audit user's LINE Rich Menu

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the priority resolution order, the silent override from OA Manager, and the exact return fields including an explanation string. 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?

The description is well-organized: a guiding question, numbered priority list, then args/returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value, with no superfluous text.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and read-only semantics. The description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameters, and return values. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%; description adds meaning for 'oa' as an optional OA id, and clarifies that 'user_id' is the LINE user ID. The description's explanation of both parameters is consistent with the schema and adds context beyond it.

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 opens with a diagnostic question, then explicitly states it inspects the rich-menu priority chain. It lists the exact steps in the chain, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like line_list_rich_menus.

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 explains the priority chain and notes a silent gotcha (OA Manager built menus override API ones), implying when to use this tool for debugging unexpected menus. It gives context but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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