get_cafeteria_menu

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the valid option ranges for restaurant and week, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention return format, data freshness, or error behavior, but annotations carry the main burden.

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 a compact single sentence plus a parameter listing. It front-loads the core purpose and packs the essential parameter constraints efficiently. Slightly dense but nothing redundant.

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 menu-query tool with good readOnly+openWorld annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection domain (restaurant+week options). Some gaps remain: no mention of what the response contains (e.g., daily menu details), whether meals are filtered by time, or how availability is indicated. Considering the tool's moderate complexity and zero schema coverage, it's adequate but not rich.

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%, so the description must compensate by documenting parameters. It does list the valid values for restaurant (백록관/천지관/두리) and week (0=이번주, 1=다음주), giving real semantic meaning beyond the bare schema fields. Both parameters have defaults, and the description adds the valid-domain detail that fills the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource: '강원대 춘천캠퍼스 학식 식단을 조회합니다' (queries cafeteria menu). It explicitly names the two selectable parameters (restaurant: 백록관/천지관/두리, week: 0=이번주/1=다음주), which distinguishes it well from siblings like get_all_cafeteria_menus and get_next_shuttle.

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 gives implicit usage context by enumerating valid restaurant and week options, orienting the agent on what to pass. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool vs get_all_cafeteria_menus (which likely fetches all cafeterias), nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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