get_all_cafeteria_menus

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is already covered. The description adds the week offset semantics (0=this week, 1=next week) which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what happens if data is unavailable for a given week, or whether partial results per cafeteria are returned.

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?

Single sentence with the essential information front-loaded. The paragraph annotation title adds a redundant but harmless restatement. No wasted words; the week parameter explanation is embedded efficiently.

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?

For a read-only batch query tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter semantics adequately. However, with no output schema and no description of the return format (is it a combined menu list? per-restaurant structure?), the agent can't anticipate the response shape. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not complete.

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%, meaning the parameter 'week' has no description in the schema. The description does explain week=0/1 mapping in the description body, which compensates partially. However, the parameter semantics are quite thin - only two possible values for a field that's typed as unbounded integer, with no explanation of what happens outside 0/1 range.

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 retrieves cafeteria menus for 3 specific restaurants (백록관/천지관/두리) at Kangwon National University Chuncheon campus. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_cafeteria_menu' (singular) by specifying '일괄 조회' (batch retrieval of all three). The purpose is clear though the scope is campus/location-specific.

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 context for when to use it (weekly aggregation of all 3 cafeterias), and the sibling name 'get_cafeteria_menu' implies an alternative for individual menus. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_cafeteria_menu or when to use a single-cafeteria lookup instead. The week parameter usage (0=this week, 1=next week) is explained.

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