mess_get_registrations

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false), but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the 2-month range limit, inclusive date handling, and that it returns a JSON array of specific MealRegistration objects. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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: purpose first, usage examples, constraints, then parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (detailed in the Returns section), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, constraints, parameters, and return format without needing to duplicate structured data.

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 provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by listing the three parameters (auth_key/session, from, to) and clarifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and inclusivity, but doesn't explain the auth_key/session relationship or provide examples. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with specific verb ('look up') and resource ('meals the user is registered for'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on retrieving existing registrations rather than creating, updating, or canceling them. 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 clear context for when to use this tool (to answer questions about what meals are booked) and includes a practical constraint ('Max range: 2 months'), but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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