get_capacities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses read-only behavior by saying 'Return', documents the date default ('Defaults to today'), and explains API key fallback. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple read-only capacity lookup this is reasonable.

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 short functional sentences plus a compact argument list. Every sentence adds information, and the most important capability and usage are front-loaded.

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 capacity-checking tool with an output schema and only three parameters, the description covers purpose, timing of use, parameter semantics, and authentication. 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: meal lists the valid values, date gives format and default behavior, api_key explains environment-variable fallback. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return available seat counts and maximum capacity for every mess for a meal.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_meal_timings or check_registrations, which focus on timings and registration state rather than capacity.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call this before registering to verify a mess is not full.' This gives a clear trigger condition, though it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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