mess_get_cancellations_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the return type ('JSON integer count'), but doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't contradict 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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. However, the 'Args:' section is overly brief and could be more informative without losing conciseness. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification.

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's moderate complexity (1 parameter with nested properties), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and return type, but lacks details on parameter usage, error handling, and integration with sibling tools. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but more context would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It lists parameters ('auth_key/session, meal (required), optional month, optional year') but provides no details on formats, constraints, or interactions. For example, it doesn't explain that 'auth_key' and 'session' are alternatives or that 'meal' is an enum. This is insufficient given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Get count of cancelled registrations for a meal in a month.' It specifies the verb ('Get count'), resource ('cancelled registrations'), and scope ('for a meal in a month'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_cancellation_window' or 'mess_get_registrations', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'mess_get_registrations' (which might list registrations) or 'mess_get_cancellation_window' (which might provide cancellation rules). There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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