mess_get_registration_max_date

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description only specifies the return format ('JSON date string (YYYY-MM-DD)'), which is useful but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements (implied by params), rate limits, or error conditions. 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 well-structured and concise, with three clear sections: purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by integrating the argument details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, parameter intent, and return format. However, it lacks context on how this date interacts with other registration tools, which could aid the agent in workflow decisions.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'params' argument as 'auth_key or session' and noting the return format. However, it doesn't detail the structure of 'params' (an object with 'auth_key' and 'session' properties) or clarify that only one is needed, leaving gaps compared to the schema's richer definitions. This meets the baseline for partial compensation.

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 the maximum future date allowed for meal registration.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('maximum future date'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_registration_window' or 'mess_get_cancellation_window' that might also return date-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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this tool retrieves a date limit, there's no mention of related tools like 'mess_get_registration_window' or 'mess_get_cancellations_count' that might be used in similar contexts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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