campus_dining

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the content dimensions returned (location, service availability, opening hours) and, by describing itself as 'information', implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about completeness of results, whether closed venues are included, or the shape of the response.

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?

One short parenthetical sentence with no wasted words, and the key resource is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and the coverage summary could have been paired with a one-clause usage cue at no extra length cost.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the subject matter but not the return values in any detail (no indication of fields like venue name, contact, or per-day hours). It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about result structure.

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%: the single optional 'campus' parameter already documents the three enum values and that omission means all campuses. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema is self-sufficient — baseline 3.

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 a specific resource (campus dining venues: canteens and coffee/light-meal outlets) and enumerates the data it covers (location, meal service, business hours). That is clearer than a bare name restatement, but it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings such as campus_services, campus_map, or campus_housing, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the noun phrase alone that this is the lookup for on-campus food options rather than general campus facilities.

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