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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is the fixed set of ten locations, the per-day service-period behavior, and the live 'serving right now' flag — all useful context beyond what the annotations state. It doesn't address auth, caching, or what happens for a date outside the publish window, which the schema hints at but the description does not.

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?

Opens with the verb and resource, then the field list, then the exclusion sentence — a logical front-loaded order with no filler. The returned-field enumeration is long but each item is meaningful for an agent deciding whether the response is sufficient.

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?

A read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, an output schema, and a description that covers scope, returned fields, and the live-status nuance. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and know when the result is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with a documented YYYY-MM-DD pattern and a stated publish window (today-3 to today+14), so the parameter is fully specified structurally. The description only alludes to the date via 'requested day' and adds no format or range detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 (List) and a precisely bounded resource (the ten U-M dining halls), then enumerates the fields returned. The scope sentence excluding cafes, markets, bakeries, grills, prices and meal plans makes it unmistakable which locations are covered.

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 out-of-scope list clearly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool, and 'the service periods published for the requested day' implies the date-scoped use. However, it never names the sibling that handles the excluded categories (e.g. get_menu for menus, filter_dishes for prices), so routing still requires inference.

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