mhlb_get_day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, covering safety and external dependencies. The description adds the nature of the returned data (items, prices, etc.), which is output content rather than behavioral context. It does not disclose potential side effects or limitations beyond what annotations imply, so it meets the baseline without enriching beyond the structured metadata.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the detail fields. There is no fluff or repetition; 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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential data content (items, sizes, quantities, add-ons, prices) and the date scope. It lacks explicit error scenarios or prerequisites beyond the schema's studentId hint, but overall it is adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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% for both parameters. The schema already explains studentId as 'Student id from mhlb_list_students' and date as 'The day to look at (YYYY-MM-DD)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (what a student has ordered on a specific date), and enumerates the returned fields (items, sizes, quantities, add-ons, prices). This distinguishes it from siblings like mhlb_get_order (single order) and mhlb_get_cart (current cart) by emphasizing the date qualifier.

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 phrase 'one specific date' gives clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for a single day's data for a known student. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the description provides sufficient situational framing for an agent to select it versus other getters.

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