mess_get_registration

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies that it 'only returns active (non-cancelled) registrations,' describes default behaviors (date defaults to today, omitted meal returns all meals), and hints at authentication needs via the Args section. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage examples, adds behavioral notes, and includes Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The front-loaded purpose and examples make it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (single-date lookup), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's behavior, usage, and parameters adequately. However, it could be slightly more detailed on parameter constraints (e.g., meal options) to compensate for low schema coverage, but overall it provides sufficient context for effective 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section listing parameters (auth_key/session, optional meal, optional date) and explains their semantics: meal omission returns all meals, date omission defaults to today, and auth details are noted. However, it doesn't fully document all parameter details (e.g., meal enum values, date format beyond YYYY-MM-DD), leaving some gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds meaningful but incomplete context.

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: 'Look up the user's registration for a single date (defaults to today).' It specifies the verb ('look up'), resource ('user's registration'), and scope ('single date'), and distinguishes it from siblings like mess_get_registrations (plural) by focusing on a single date. The example questions further clarify the use case.

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: to answer specific questions like 'am I registered for lunch today?' or 'what mess am I going to tonight?'. It also distinguishes it from alternatives by noting it 'only returns active (non-cancelled) registrations,' implying that other tools (e.g., mess_get_registrations) might include cancelled ones. This is clear and actionable.

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