search_menus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the ranking model (best matches first), the result envelope {items, total, offset, truncated}, and the truncation behavior — real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 padding, and the ranking semantics are front-loaded before the paging detail. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 supplies the return shape and paging contract itself, and the annotations cover safety. Nothing needed to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 limit, query and offset are already fully documented in the schema. The description's restatement of default size 20 / max 50 and offset paging adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('Fuzzy-ranked search of menus by name') plus the ranking behavior (typo-tolerant, multi-token), which separates it from list_menus and search_menu_items. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than be told it.

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 implies when to use it — fuzzy name lookup rather than enumeration — but never states when to prefer list_menus or search_menu_items, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the verb, not spelled out.

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