minutkas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint: availability is direct-sale only, with no guaranteed stock and no online reservations. That preempts a wrong assumption that the listed items can be reserved online. It stops short of stating read-only nature, auth needs, or freshness/latency of the published data.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the availability caveat is placed immediately after the subject. The opening noun is jargon, which slightly undercuts front-loading, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves the agent without parameter semantics, without a definition of 'minutky', and without any link to the overlapping 'menu' sibling. For a two-parameter listing tool that is a substantive gap.

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 says nothing about either parameter. It does not explain the expected format of 'day' (date? weekday name?) or what values 'canteen' accepts beyond the default 'harcov'. The one useful hint, that results are scoped to a canteen, is only inferable from the schema itself.

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?

It names a specific resource (the published 'minutky' menu) and adds a scope caveat, so an agent knows roughly what it returns. However, 'minutky' is unexplained domain jargon and the description never distinguishes this from the sibling 'menu' tool, leaving genuine ambiguity about which listing to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though a sibling tool named 'menu' plainly overlaps. The only usage signal is implicit in the phrase 'published ... menu' and the 'direct-sale only' caveat, which tells the agent what not to expect rather than when to call it.

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