mess_get_meal_rating

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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the feedback window restriction (403 error), the conditional return format (single object vs. keyed by mess ID), and the default behavior when mess is omitted. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical behavioral notes and a structured breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-organized.

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 (read-only with conditional returns and authentication), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter roles, return formats, and error conditions. With annotations handling safety and an output schema presumably detailing the JSON structure, no significant gaps remain for effective agent use.

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 meaning. It effectively explains the semantics: 'auth_key/session' for authentication, 'meal (required)', 'optional mess' with behavior when omitted, and 'optional date' with default to today. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints like date format more explicitly.

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 ('Get the average rating'), target resource ('for a meal at a mess on a date'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rating retrieval rather than registration, feedback, or other operations. It precisely communicates the tool's function without tautology.

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 for when to use the tool (to get meal ratings) and includes an important exclusion ('Ratings are only visible after the feedback window closes (403 otherwise)'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools or specify when not to use it beyond the feedback window constraint.

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