mhlb_print_orders

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those: the endpoint fails if studentIds is empty and also fails if no order matches the date/status. This helps an agent anticipate errors without contradicting the 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?

Three sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical constraints and a pointer to the data source. Every sentence contributes value.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and modest annotations, the description covers purpose, input source, key failure modes, and scope. It does not explain the inline/filename output behavior, but the schema fully covers those, so nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter already documented (date format, inline base64, filename default, studentIds minItems, orderStatus const values). The description reinforces studentIds being required and failure-prone, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Generate the printable order-details PDF') and immediately scopes it to 'a single lunch date,' which distinguishes it from sibling print tools like mhlb_print_calendar and mhlb_print_transaction. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 clearly instructs where to obtain the required inputs ('Get both from mhlb_get_calendar') and flags the single-date constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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