mess_get_scans_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'No authentication required' clarifies access requirements, and the return format details ('JSON { meal, mess, date, total: int, recent: int (last 10 min) }') provide behavioral insight not in annotations. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, authentication note, parameter list, and return format. It's front-loaded and efficient, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more seamlessly. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 object), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns:' details), the description is complete. It provides purpose, authentication context, parameter guidance, and return format, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 listing parameters (meal, mess, optional date) and providing format details ('YYYY-MM-DD'). However, it doesn't fully explain semantics like 'mess ID' examples beyond 'yuktahar' or meal enum values. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful but incomplete parameter 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 specific action ('Get meal availment (scan) count'), resource ('for a mess on a date'), and scope ('No authentication required'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mess_get_cancellations_count' or 'mess_get_capacities' by focusing on scan counts rather than cancellations, capacities, or other metrics.

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 context through 'No authentication required' and the parameter details, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mess_get_cancellations_count' or 'mess_get_registrations'. It provides basic parameter guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions for sibling tools.

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