get_cafeteria_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions the source (API set by environment variable) and action (retrieve), but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, how failures are handled, or any side effects. It lacks details beyond the minimal definition.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 retrieval tool with two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any information about the return format, response structure, or environment variable details, and there is no output schema to compensate. This leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, with each parameter (ymd, mealType) having a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('retrieve menu') and the resource ('restaurant API set by environment variable'), matching the tool name. Since no sibling tools are present, differentiation is not needed, so it fully satisfies the purpose clarity criterion.

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 implies usage for retrieving menu data, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives. Given the absence of sibling tools, the implied context is acceptable, but it does not proactively guide the agent on when to choose this tool.

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