mhlb_print_orders

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, leaving the description to carry behavioral disclosure. The description adds valuable failure behavior: it states the endpoint fails on empty studentIds and when no order matches the date/status. It also implies file-writing via the filename parameter but does not explicitly confirm side effects beyond generating a PDF. This is strong for a mutation tool and exceeds the minimal disclosure, though it omits details like response format or async 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose and scope, and the second adds critical constraints and input sourcing. There is zero redundancy — every clause earns its place, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 5 parameters all documented in the schema, the description covers the key operational details: single-date scope, required studentIds, failure modes, and where to get inputs. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the inline parameter, which hints at the output format. It could explicitly mention the return value (file path vs base64) but the schema's inline description covers that, so completeness is high.

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% so each parameter has a description, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by warning that an empty studentIds list causes failure (schema only states minItems:1) and by pointing to mhlb_get_calendar as the source for both date and studentIds. This directly aids correct invocation, so a 4 is warranted.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('printable order-details PDF'), scoped to a single lunch date. It explicitly distinguishes itself from range-based operations ('one date, not a range'), which differentiates it from sibling print tools like mhlb_print_calendar. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives practical usage context by instructing the agent to obtain the required date and studentIds from mhlb_get_calendar, which helps sequence calls. It also highlights failure conditions (empty studentIds, no matching order) that guide when to avoid calling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like mhlb_print_transaction, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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