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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact roles required ('pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator'), which is not present in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the access level, then states the operation, the role requirement, and the read-only nature in order. Every word contributes value.

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 simple list operation with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It communicates the access control and read-only behavior, though it does not mention pagination, ordering, or filtering. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate but does not. The description mentions 'for a restaurant' but never explains the restaurant_id parameter, its expected format, or how it relates to the list. An agent must infer the parameter meaning from its name alone.

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 and resource: 'Lists menu items for a restaurant.' The 'Read-only' qualifier and 'ADMIN' prefix clearly distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like create_menu_item, update_menu_item, and delete_menu_item. This is immediately actionable.

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 gives clear context: this is an admin-only, read-only operation that requires a specific role. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the role requirement and read-only nature provide enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately among menu-related siblings.

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