Dining hall occupancy

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the data is real-time, only sensor-equipped halls are returned, and the specific metrics included are listed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the coverage limitation. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. The description explains the key metrics and sensor coverage, though 'patron flow' remains somewhat ambiguous without relying on the output schema.

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?

The single optional 'hall' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including support for a string or list. The description does not mention or add meaning to the parameter, 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?

States a specific resource (dining hall occupancy) and enumerates the returned metrics: current count, patron flow, capacity, and percent full. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_menu, get_hours, and find_open_now.

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?

Usage is implied by the real-time occupancy framing, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with alternatives such as get_hours or find_open_now. The sensor-only caveat helps set expectations but is not route guidance.

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