mess_get_menus

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already indicate this is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, the description adds that 'Menus are stored week-wise (Sunday-anchored)' and 'effective_from always falls on a Sunday', which helps the agent understand the temporal structure of the data. It doesn't contradict any 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 clear sections: purpose statement, usage examples, data format explanation, and parameter/return documentation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately tells the agent what the tool does.

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 single parameter, comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' documentation), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage, authentication requirements, data structure, parameter semantics, and return format - everything an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has no description for the 'params' property itself), the description compensates well by explaining the 'on' parameter's purpose, format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), optionality, default behavior ('defaults to today'), and the weekly storage logic. However, it doesn't fully explain the nested 'params' object structure beyond the 'on' field.

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 food menu'), resource ('for all messes'), and scope ('on a date'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like mess_get_meal_timings or mess_get_rates by focusing specifically on menu content rather than other dining-related information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool with three concrete example questions ('what's for lunch today?', 'what's on the menu this week?', 'what is [mess] serving for dinner?'). It also states 'No auth required' which helps the agent understand when authentication isn't needed versus other tools that likely require it.

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