mhlb_get_calendar

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: account scope, date range, and the specific per-student statuses returned (open, ordered, paid, cart, subscribed, closed). It does not detail response structure or pagination, but that is less critical for a read-only calendar summary.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the status list is compact but informative.

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-only tool with two simple required date parameters and no output schema, the description orients the agent well: it names what data is returned and per whom. It stops short of specifying the exact response shape, but the enumerated statuses are enough for correct use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document the start and end dates. The tool description only refers to 'a date range' and does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the lunch calendar') and clearly defines scope: date range and per-student day statuses. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like mhlb_print_calendar or mhlb_get_day, so it misses the full 5.

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 implies when to use the tool by saying it reflects the Lunch Calendar page, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There is no mention of preferring mhlb_get_day for a single day or mhlb_print_calendar for a printable version.

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