mhlb_get_cart_tabs

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so no side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (valid filter values, default selection) and that it is a prerequisite. It does not contradict annotations. It could elaborate on how the values are presented, but given the readOnlyHint, it is adequately transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately states the usage instruction. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise and efficient.

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 simple read-only helper with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it returns, its relationship to mhlb_get_cart, and when to invoke it. It doesn't specify the exact output format, but the agent can reasonably infer it from the context. Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds contextual meaning by linking 'period' to ordering periods (semesters) and 'tabName' to status tabs, but this mostly mirrors the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the description doesn't need to compensate; it doesn't add significant semantic depth beyond what the schema states.

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 function: retrieving valid filter values (ordering periods and status tabs) for mhlb_get_cart, including which is selected by default. It names the target resource (mhlb_get_cart) and distinguishes itself as a prerequisite helper. The verb 'Get' is explicit and the scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this before filtering the cart,' giving a clear usage directive. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but for a helper tool tightly coupled to mhlb_get_cart, this is sufficient. The context is clear enough for an agent to know it's a preparatory step.

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