get_meal_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, whether data is cached, what happens with invalid parameters, or the format/structure of returned data. The description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic read implication.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'meal rates' means (per meal? per person?), what format the data returns, whether there are access restrictions, or how this tool relates to the broader meal management system. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain why someone would filter by meal type or date, what 'all messes' means in relation to parameters, or how the parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('meal rates for all messes'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_meal_capacities' or 'get_menu' by focusing specifically on rates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar-sounding tools like 'get_bill' which might also involve financial 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. With many sibling tools related to meals, registrations, and billing, there's no indication of whether this is for planning, billing reconciliation, or other purposes. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions are mentioned.

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