get_meal_manager_calendars

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: an empty calendars list is a normal non-error outcome (preventing a false failure report), and the tool requires dd-cli >= 0.2.6. Both are genuinely additive context an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information — resource, empty-result handling, join path, version gate. Slight weakness in front-loading: the resource is stated as a fragment rather than a verb-led sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey the shape of the result (calendars with dated group carts) and the expected empty case. It does not describe fields within a calendar entry, which an agent may still need to act on the returned cart identifiers.

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 both the date window and the intent privacy constraint are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about date semantics or the intent parameter, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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 identifies a specific resource — Corporate Meal Manager (DoorDash for Work) calendars and their dated group carts — which is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like list_carts and show_cart. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb (it opens with a noun phrase), so an agent infers 'get' from the name rather than the prose.

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 routes the agent onward with a concrete alternative: join a listed cart via add_items_to_cart using cart_id as cart_uuid plus group_cart. That is actionable steering. It does not say when to prefer this over list_carts or show_cart, so the exclusion side is only implied.

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