mhlb_get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the granularity ('per student') and the set of statuses returned, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but the read-only nature plus enumerated statuses is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a concise enumeration of what the calendar includes. Every word earns its place.

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 date-range query with two well-documented parameters, the description conveys the high-level return content (statuses per student) but does not detail the exact response structure (e.g., grouping, ordering). Since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap, but not critical for an agent to successfully invoke the tool.

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 already provides full descriptive coverage (100%) for both startDate and endDate, each with a clear format hint and meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('lunch calendar for the account'), and the scope ('over a date range'), then enumerates the specific statuses returned (open, ordered, paid, in cart, subscribed, closed) per student. It also explicitly ties it to the Lunch Calendar page, distinguishing it from related tools like mhlb_get_day or mhlb_get_cart.

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 gives clear context on what the tool returns, implying it is the definitive source for per-day ordering status across a range. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use', the reference to the Lunch Calendar page provides enough contextual signal for an agent to infer its role among siblings such as mhlb_print_calendar or mhlb_get_day.

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