get_extra_registrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format might be, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 ('Get your registered extra items') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as specifying 'extra meal registrations' to add clarity. Overall, it's appropriately sized but under-specified.

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 complexity of meal registration systems and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'extra items' are, how results are returned, or prerequisites like user authentication. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('meal' with enum values and 'date' with format and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'meal' relates to 'extra items' or the context of 'date'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get your registered extra items' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('registered extra items'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'extra items' specifically refers to (e.g., additional meal registrations beyond standard ones) and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'get_extras' or 'get_registrations', which might have overlapping functions.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_extras', 'get_registrations', and 'get_meal_rating', it's unclear if this is for viewing personal registrations, checking availability, or other purposes. No context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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