mhlb_print_calendar

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it writes the PDF to disk and returns a path, with an inline option for base64 bytes. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side-effect profile 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (generate PDF for date range), and the second covers output behavior and the inline option. 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?

Given the five parameters, three of which are required, and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (path or inline bytes). It also covers the side effect of writing to disk. It does not mention error conditions beyond what the schema already notes (e.g., empty studentIds fails), but that is already documented. No critical missing context for correct invocation.

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% — every parameter (startDate, endDate, studentIds, inline, filename) has a description. The tool description reiterates the inline behavior and file-writing but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 ('Generate') and a specific resource ('printable lunch calendar PDF'), and the date range scope. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling mhlb_get_calendar (data retrieval) and other print tools like mhlb_print_orders and mhlb_print_transaction, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what it does but not when an agent should prefer it over mhlb_get_calendar or the other print tools. It does not mention conditions like needing a PDF versus data, or exclusions.

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