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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description mirrors this with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it adds meaningful context: role requirement (pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator) and the 'active school' scoping. This helps the agent understand permissions and context beyond what annotations capture.

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 two tightly packed sentences: it opens with 'ADMIN:' to set access expectations, then states the operation, scope, and role requirement. No filler or redundant information, and the read-only note is short. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one-param, read-only tool with a full output schema and no nested objects, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and call it: it defines the use case, the auth requirement, and the scope. The date format is already in the schema, so no further explanation is needed.

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%, with menu_date documented as 'YYYY-MM-DD'. The description adds only 'on a given date,' which maps to the same parameter but does not add new semantic detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the descriptive burden.

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource ('all orders for the active school on a given date'), and an access scope ('ADMIN', 'Requires pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator role'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_monthly_orders (monthly aggregation) and get_orders (general order lookup).

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 provides clear context: this is an admin-only tool for retrieving all orders on a specific date for the active school. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the daily scope and role requirement make the intended use evident without ambiguity.

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