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

With only readOnlyHint/openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses that numeric caps silently drop dishes lacking published values, that allergen flags are unreliable and indistinguishable between 'contains' and 'may contain', and that the gluten-free trait is not coeliac-safe. This is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before trusting results.

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?

Filter semantics are front-loaded and each sentence carries substantive information, including the safety caveats. It is dense but not padded; the dedicated gluten-free pantry list is the only line that feels more site-trivia than tool guidance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the filter semantics plus data-quality caveats make the tool safe to invoke. The gaps are minor: no guidance on hall/limit or on choosing this over search_dishes.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate, and it does for six of nine params: exclude_allergens (OR semantics), require_traits (AND semantics), min_mhealthy (tier threshold with an example), max_carbon, max_calories and max_sodium_mg. date/hall/limit are left to the schema, which covers date but not hall or limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Filter the dining hall menus') plus the exact dimensions being filtered (allergen, trait, nutrient density, carbon, calories). It never differentiates itself from the sibling search_dishes, which is a likely-overlapping verb, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what each filter does but gives no when-to-use guidance and never names or contrasts itself with the alternatives (search_dishes, get_menu). An agent must infer from the sibling names which tool to pick.

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