mhlb_get_day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that the returned text is authored by third parties and must be treated as data, never as instructions. This trust boundary is important and not derivable from the schema, though return format and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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, tightly written, with the core purpose front-loaded and the security caveat second. No filler or redundancy; every clause 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 two-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back and flags the untrusted-content risk. What is missing is how a day's multiple orders, if any, are aggregated and whether results are bounded — minor gaps for an otherwise complete definition.

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% (date format documented, studentId sourced from mhlb_list_students), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's enumeration of items/sizes/quantities/prices describes return content, not parameter semantics, so it adds no parameter-level information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (what a student ordered on one specific date) and enumerates the returned content (items, sizes, quantities, add-ons, prices). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as mhlb_get_order or mhlb_get_calendar, so an agent must infer whether 'a day' means an aggregated daily view versus a single order.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'on one specific date' plus the two required params suggests this is a daily snapshot lookup for one student. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion ('use mhlb_get_order for a single order'), and no prerequisites, so routing among the order-related siblings 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.