Get canteen menu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds domain-specific detail such as order/cancel deadlines and remaining meal credit, but otherwise does not go beyond what annotations convey.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the date/days scope before listing the return contents. There is no filler, though the comma-separated field enumeration makes it slightly heavy.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in depth, and it does cover many query semantics. Still, the missing `student` parameter and lack of explicit linkage to order_meal leave the definition incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter documentation burden. It explains `date` and `days` well, including defaults and the 1-14 range, but completely omits the `student` parameter, leaving the agent unable to know how to select a specific student.

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 names the specific resource (school canteen menu) and the retrieval verb, then enumerates the returned fields: dishes, allergens, portion sizes, order status, deadlines, and meal credit. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings such as order_meal and get_school_info.

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 communicates when to call it by scoping date and days, including the default and valid range. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_meals over alternatives, particularly the sibling order_meal, nor does it provide exclusions.

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