mhlb_get_calendar

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds a security-relevant disclosure: returned text is third-party authored, untrusted, and must be treated as data rather than instructions. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey, and it also documents the shape of the response (per-student day statuses).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and response content, then the trust caveat. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor cost is that the status enumeration is dense within a single sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the calendar returns (day statuses per student) and flagging the untrusted-content property. Nothing an agent needs to call this read-only range query correctly is missing.

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% with two well-documented date parameters, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only adds "over a date range", which adds no format or boundary detail beyond what startDate/endDate already specify.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (lunch calendar) scoped to a date range, then enumerates the exact content returned: open, ordered, paid, in-cart, subscribed, closed, per student. This level of detail cleanly separates it from siblings like mhlb_get_day or mhlb_get_menu without needing to open either schema.

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 line "This is what the Lunch Calendar page shows" anchors the tool to a concrete UI context, which implies when an agent should reach for it. However, it names no alternative and states no when-not conditions, so routing between this and mhlb_get_day or mhlb_get_menu is left to inference.

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