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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: an empty restaurant argument returns menus for all restaurants along with closed-day information, while a specified restaurant limits the query. This clarifies the tool's aggregation behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 at three sentences, front-loads the core purpose and date format, and each sentence contributes distinct information: what is queried, what happens when restaurant is empty, and what happens when restaurant is specified. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential request semantics and response scope, including all-restaurant versus single-restaurant behavior. It could be slightly more complete by describing the return structure or what happens when no menu exists for the date, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining critical details.

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 already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the effect of leaving restaurant empty versus providing a value, which reinforces the schema's guidance and clarifies the scope of the result set.

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 tool's action: querying the Soongsil University student cafeteria menu for a specified date in yyyy-MM-dd format. It also distinguishes behavior based on whether the restaurant parameter is provided, which separates it from date-specific meal tools like get_today_meal or get_meal_weekly.

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 gives concrete guidance on how to use the restaurant parameter: leave it empty for all campus restaurants or specify one for a single restaurant. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like get_today_meal, get_meal_weekly, or get_dorm_weekly_meal, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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