mess_get_meal_timings

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context by specifying the return format (JSON with mess_id and meal timings) and the default date behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. With annotations covering core safety and idempotency, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description offers some supplementary value.

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 into three clear sections: a purpose statement, args explanation, and returns specification. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses minimal words to convey necessary details.

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 (one parameter, read-only operation) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameter semantics and return format, and with an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it lacks usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent's decision-making.

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, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'params: optional on (YYYY-MM-DD), defaults to today.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose, format, and default behavior, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Since there's only one parameter and the description fully documents it, a score of 4 is warranted.

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 meal timings (start/end times) for each mess on a date.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('meal timings'), and scope ('for each mess on a date'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_menus' or 'mess_get_info', which might also retrieve mess-related data, so it doesn't reach 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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'mess_get_menus' or 'mess_get_capacities'. The only contextual hint is the default behavior for the date parameter, which is insufficient for usage decisions.

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