mess_get_rates

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context: it specifies the return format (JSON with category arrays containing mess, day, rate), clarifies that rates are in paise, and mentions grouping by category. This goes beyond annotations by detailing output structure and units, though it doesn't cover authentication requirements (handled in schema).

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 clear purpose statement, category listing, parameter documentation, and return format—all in four concise lines. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second lists categories, the third documents parameters, and the fourth specifies the return format. No wasted words.

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 (retrieving structured data), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and output format. The main gap is missing documentation for auth_key and session parameters, which are in the schema but not mentioned in the description.

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. It documents two parameters: 'meal (required)' and 'on (YYYY-MM-DD, optional)', adding format details for the date. However, it omits the 'auth_key' and 'session' parameters from the schema, leaving them undocumented. The description compensates partially but not completely for the schema coverage 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 mess rates (in paise) for a meal on a date, grouped by category.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('mess rates'), units ('in paise'), grouping ('by category'), and lists the four categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mess_get_menus or mess_get_capacities that retrieve different data.

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 implies usage by specifying what data is retrieved (rates for a meal/date) and the categories, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with mess_get_bill or mess_get_all_bills which might provide billing information. The guidance is functional but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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