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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: the all-restaurant mode returns per-corner menus and closed-day information, and the specific-restaurant mode returns only that restaurant. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences and no filler. The only minor flaw is a slight ambiguity: the first sentence says 'student cafeteria menu,' then immediately broadens the default behavior to all campus restaurants, which could confuse an agent on first read.

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 one optional parameter, the description covers the essential behavior, default scope, and included closed-day information. It does not specify whether the single-restaurant result also includes closed-day info or how an invalid restaurant name is handled, but these are small gaps for such a lightweight tool.

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 documents the optional restaurant parameter at 100% coverage, including allowed values and the empty-vs-specified behavior, so the baseline is 3. The tool description repeats much of this and adds only a small increment: that the all-restaurant result includes corner menus and holiday/closed-day info.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it retrieves today's meal menus for Soongsil University cafeterias, and it explains the two scope modes (all restaurants vs. one named restaurant). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from meal-related siblings such as get_meal_by_date or get_meal_weekly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 practical guidance on the restaurant parameter: leaving it empty returns all campus restaurants, and specifying it narrows the result to one restaurant. However, it never tells the agent when to choose this tool over the alternative meal tools in the sibling list, so the when-not-to-use guidance is missing.

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