mhlb_print_calendar

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that the tool writes a PDF to disk and can optionally return bytes inline. This is a meaningful behavioral detail (side effect of file creation) that the annotations alone do not convey. The description does not state file overwrite behavior or output path details, but the core side effect is transparent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff: the first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the output modes. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies key behavior. Every clause earns its place, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential return behavior (path or bytes) and the main purpose. It does not mention error conditions like invalid date ranges or the requirement for at least one student, but the latter is covered in the schema. The openWorldHint suggests external side effects, and the file-writing detail is beneficial. Overall, the description is mostly complete, though a note on parameter dependencies or typical failure modes could push it higher.

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?

Since the input schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage (including startDate/endDate ranges, studentIds requirement, inline boolean, filename default), the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'bytes inline' mirrors the inline parameter description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load and the description does not add extra meaning.

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 action ('Generate the printable lunch calendar PDF') and the scope ('for a date range'), leaving no ambiguity about the resource and operation. It also mentions the two delivery modes (disk path or inline bytes), which further clarifies what the tool produces. This distinguishes it from siblings like mhlb_get_calendar, which likely returns data rather than a printable artifact.

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 (producing a printable calendar) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of mhlb_get_calendar or other print tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only contextual hint is in the studentIds parameter description ('from mhlb_list_students'), which is outside the tool description. Thus the agent gets some implied guidance but no explicit routing.

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