mhlb_get_order_form

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 known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a pre-populated structure with available items, and that the structure is exactly what mhlb_create_order expects. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and key value proposition ('pre-populated with the available items'). No filler or redundant phrasing. 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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no nested objects, no output schema). The description explains what the output is (the structure for mhlb_create_order) and its key trait (pre-populated items), which is sufficient for an agent to know how to use it. It could mention the exact content of items, but that is likely available from mhlb_get_menu. Overall, complete for its complexity.

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%: both parameters (eventId and studentId) have clear descriptions including their source tools (mhlb_get_menu/mhlb_get_calendar and mhlb_list_students). The description does not add extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('blank order model for a student on a specific lunch event'), and explains its purpose ('exact structure that mhlb_create_order expects back'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like mhlb_get_order (existing order) and mhlb_get_student_form (different form).

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 the use case: when you need a blank form to later create an order. It references mhlb_create_order as the consumer, giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'blank' vs 'existing' distinction is implicit. No exclusion criteria, but the purpose is strong enough to guide selection.

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