mhlb_get_order_form

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in structured data: the returned content is third-party authored and untrusted, with an explicit prompt-injection warning. It also discloses that the model is pre-populated with available items. It stops short of covering size, paging, or upstream failure behavior.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines what is returned and its downstream consumer, the second carries the security constraint. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return as text containing a blank, item-populated order model matching mhlb_create_order's expected `data`. It does not spell out the exact text/JSON shape or error cases, but an agent has enough to call and consume it 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% and both parameters already document their source tools (mhlb_get_menu/mhlb_get_calendar for eventId, mhlb_list_students for studentId). The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the blank order model for a student on a specific lunch event') and clarifies scope as a pre-populated, submission-ready template. It also distinguishes itself from form siblings (mhlb_get_student_form, mhlb_new_student_form) by naming its consumer, mhlb_create_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?

The description makes the usage context clear by saying this is 'the exact structure that mhlb_create_order expects back (as `data`)', which tells the agent to call it before creating an order. It does not state exclusions or compare against mhlb_get_order / mhlb_get_menu as alternatives, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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