get_cancellation_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and handles it well. It discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Return'), that month and year default to current values, and that api_key falls back to an environment variable. It also exposes the budgeting/comparison logic (against get_config_windows). Minor gaps include not clarifying whether the count is scoped to the current authenticated user or what occurs when no data exists for the month.

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 efficiently front-loaded: the first sentence states the entire purpose, the second adds high-value behavioral context about budget comparison, and the Args block is a minimal, scannable list. No sentence is redundant; each earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 simple read-only count tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, parameter semantics, defaults, and how the result relates to get_config_windows. The presence of an output schema means the return format need not be spelled out in prose. It could add explicit confirmation of read-only behavior and user scoping, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively. The Args section documents all four parameters with meaning the schema lacks: meal gets an explicit allowed-value list ('breakfast', 'lunch', 'snacks', 'dinner'), month gets a range (1-12), year gets a format hint (YYYY), and api_key gets fallback behavior. Every parameter is semantically enriched beyond the raw schema properties.

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: 'Return how many cancellations the user has used for a meal in a given month.' This precisely identifies the operation as a counting/read action, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_meal and uncancel_meal, which perform mutations. The additional budget-comparison sentence reinforces the tool's specific role in the cancellation-penalty flow.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the tool 'determines remaining budget before penalties apply,' which tells an agent when this lookup is relevant. It also names get_config_windows as the source of the system maximum, implicitly identifying a related tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like get_meal_scan_count, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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