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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the duplicate 'Read-only' adds little. However, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the required roles and the active-school scoping behavior.

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 concise sentence with the ADMIN marker front-loaded, followed by scope, role requirements, and read-only status. Every element is directly useful and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, an output schema is present, and safety annotations are provided. The description adds the missing human-context elements, roles and active-school scope, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter description, including the default-to-active-school behavior. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'Lists', the resource 'restaurants', and the scope 'for the active school'. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_menu_items or create_restaurant because the resource and admin context are explicit.

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 by labeling this as an ADMIN operation and explicitly listing the allowed roles (pac_cordinator, pac_member, lunch_cordinator). It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the role and resource scope make the intended usage clear.

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