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

Beyond the annotations that already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: inactive restaurants are filtered out, the active school is the default, and role requirements are specified. The description is consistent with the annotations and provides extra filtering and authorization detail.

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 compact yet information-dense: scope, filtering behavior, downstream integration, and role requirements are each covered in exactly the space they need. Despite listing multiple dependent tool names, every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given a single optional parameter, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations, this description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned, what is excluded, default behavior, authorization, and how the results are consumed elsewhere. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter school_slug at 100% coverage, including its default-to-active-school behavior. The description reinforces that default but adds no new parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('active restaurants attached to a school'), with a clear default scope ('defaults to the active school'). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like list_restaurant_menu_items and create_school_restaurant by focusing on school-level restaurant retrieval.

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 explicitly notes that the returned restaurant_id values are required by several downstream tools, giving the agent a clear reason to call this tool first. It also states the required roles for accessing it. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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