Search menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and openWorld=true. The description adds that matching is fuzzy and restricted to Chinese name/description, and that results include linkId, price, and whether spec selection is required. It does not disclose ranking, no-match behavior, or how limit affects results.

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 short, front-loaded, and states the key scope first. The Chinese sentence largely repeats the English sentence while adding return fields, which is slightly redundant but not excessive.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives partial return-value info (linkId, price, spec selection) which is valuable. It still leaves gaps around the limit parameter, result ranking, no-match behavior, and the exact select_store prerequisite.

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%: query is described with Chinese examples, while limit is undocumented in both schema and description. The description reinforces that the query must be Chinese name/description, which is useful, but it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented limit 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 states a specific verb+resource: fuzzy-searching dishes in the selected store menu by Chinese name/description. It clearly distinguishes a search action from browse-oriented siblings like get_menu and get_item, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'selected store menu' implies select_store is a prerequisite, which is useful context. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of get_menu/get_item browsing or how it relates to cart_add for the returned linkId.

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