mess_get_max_cancellations

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond this, such as the return type ('JSON integer'), but doesn't disclose additional traits like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since annotations cover the safety profile adequately, a score of 3 reflects some added value without rich behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Args' section could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks usage guidelines and detailed parameter explanations. With annotations handling safety and an output schema implied, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and semantics.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning parameter details are undocumented in the schema. The description lists 'params: auth_key/session, meal (required)', which adds basic semantics by naming the parameters and indicating 'meal' is required. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between auth_key and session (e.g., that one is needed for authentication), the format of 'meal', or other nuances, failing to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 the maximum free cancellations allowed per month for a meal.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('maximum free cancellations'), and scope ('per month for a meal'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_cancellations_count' or 'mess_get_cancellation_window', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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_cancellations_count' (which might get current cancellations) or 'mess_get_cancellation_window' (which might get time constraints), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual usage scenarios. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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