Get item detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful return-shape context that no output schema provides — comboRounds with roundId, selectable items, and min/max portions — but it says nothing about the fuzzy-name path (e.g. what happens when the name matches multiple dishes, or when a linkId is not found).

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the conditional combo detail. The bilingual duplication is functional rather than wasteful, and no sentence is filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical details but well within bounds.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the payload shape adequately. What is missing is behavior around fuzzy matching and ambiguity resolution and any pointer to the search tool that would normally precede this call, which matters in a menu-browsing flow.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the '模糊匹配' behavior for name and the mutual-exclusivity note '与 linkId 二选一'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get dish detail') and goes beyond the name by naming what extra payload comes back (combo rounds and option groups). An agent can tell this is a detail-fetch rather than a search, but the description never names the sibling it is distinct from (e.g. search_menu), so the differentiation is inferred from the tool name rather than earned in the text.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and none of the sibling tools (search_menu, get_menu) are referenced. The only implicit signal is that combo/option-group information requires this tool, which an agent could glean but is never stated as a routing rule. It also doesn't mention that either name or linkId must be given, even though the schema makes both optional.

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