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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, a ~100 record cap, filter precedence, and role-based visibility. Nothing contradicts 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?

The description is information-dense with no filler. Each clause earns its place: return fields, ordering, limit, filter semantics, fallback behavior, role scoping, and the pointer to a sibling tool.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers all needed invocation context: what is returned, ordering, limits, filter combination and precedence, default behavior, role-based access, and which sibling to use for menus.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: filters combine with AND, menu_date wins if both menu_date and month are provided, and student_id has ownership/role constraints. These behaviors are not inferable from the schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns lunch orders already placed - items, menu date, status, and total - for the authenticated user's students.' It clearly distinguishes this read tool from sibling create/cancel/update/order tools and from get_lunch_menu.

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?

Explicitly explains filter combination behavior (AND), menu_date vs month precedence, the no-filter default, and admin vs parent scoping. It also points to get_lunch_menu when the goal is ordering-eligible items, giving a clear alternative.

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