get_cancellation_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'how late' means (e.g., time units, cutoff times). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves time-sensitive data.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get how late you can cancel a meal') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does.

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 complexity (simple retrieval but time-sensitive), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., a time window, deadline, or boolean), how it's formatted, or any dependencies (e.g., meal ID context). For a tool in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is required or provided.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cancellation window'), and specifies the context ('for a meal'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cancellation_count' or 'get_registration_window', which also retrieve cancellation-related information but for different aspects.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active meal registration), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_cancellation_count' (which might show remaining cancellations) or 'get_registration_window' (which might show registration deadlines).

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