lunch_volunteers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns ('Shows only days that need volunteers'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication (though sibling tools suggest auth capabilities), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. Every element (checking, resource, filtering criteria) earns its place and contributes to understanding. No unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and filtering. However, for a tool that presumably returns data about volunteer opportunities, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally mention what format the results come in (e.g., list of dates, structured data). The description is complete enough for basic understanding but has gaps given the context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining how 'date' and 'week' parameters interact or providing examples beyond the schema's examples). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('Check'), resource ('Lower School lunch volunteer opportunities'), and scope ('only days that need volunteers for Salad/deli and Soup positions at 10:45am-11:45am in the dining hall'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'school_events' or 'search_directory' by focusing specifically on volunteer opportunities with precise time and position details.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: when checking for open volunteer slots in specific positions and times. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., whether 'school_events' might overlap). The guidance is contextually clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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