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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: the result is 7 days starting Monday, and the default offset behavior. It does not discuss response format or error conditions, but for a simple read-only query this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter behavior, then sibling routing. Every sentence contributes unique 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?

For a single-optional-parameter read-only tool, this is complete: it covers what is returned, the default, the offset semantics, and the correct sibling for dormitory menus. The output shape is not described, but the term 'menu' and the read-only annotations make the expected result clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by stating the default (0), that 0 means the current week from Monday, and that 1 means next week. It omits repeating the -1 case, but the schema already documents it.

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 uses a specific action ('조회합니다') and resource ('숭실대학교 학생식당의 주간 7일 메뉴'), and clarifies it is for the student cafeteria rather than the dormitory. It also differentiates from the sibling get_dorm_weekly_meal by explicitly naming that alternative.

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?

It explains when to use each offset value (weekOffset=0 for this week from Monday, weekOffset=1 for next week) and explicitly says to use get_dorm_weekly_meal for dormitory weekly menus. This gives the agent clear selection criteria rather than leaving the choice implicit.

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