get_max_cancellations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or involves side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely queries system settings, as it leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This level of conciseness is ideal for a simple query tool.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value represents (e.g., a number, an object), any error conditions, or behavioral aspects like caching or permissions. For a tool that likely returns a configuration value, more context is needed to ensure proper 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'meal' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it only reiterates the parameter generically ('for a meal'). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's information.

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: 'Get the maximum allowed cancellations per month for a meal'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('maximum allowed cancellations per month for a meal'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cancellation_count' or 'get_cancellation_window', which reduces clarity in distinguishing its unique function.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools such as 'get_cancellation_count' or 'get_cancellation_window' that might handle related data. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate application.

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