search_menu_items

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

Annotations declare read-only and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: result ordering (best matches first), ranking/relevance behavior, returned shape ({items, total, offset, truncated}), paging semantics, and the default/max page size. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no waste. Search behavior and return shape are front-loaded, paging details follow. Every clause carries information.

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?

Covers search semantics, return fields, ordering, and pagination for a 4-param read tool with no output schema. The truncation flag is named but not explained; otherwise complete. Reasonably self-sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including limit defaults/max, offset semantics, and the type enum. The description restates limit/offset defaults, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (search), resource (menu items), and the exact fields searched (name/itemNumber/tags). The parenthetical '(typo-tolerant, multi-token)' distinguishes the search semantics from the sibling search_menus, which plausibly searches menu names rather than item fields.

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?

Provides implicit paging context ('use offset to page through ranked results'; default size 20, max 50) but does not state when to use this tool versus its close siblings search_menus, list_menu_items, or search_ingredients. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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