agent-bev

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool compares 2-10 products and includes source pages for each value, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are structured, or any side effects. The lack of annotations makes this a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Compare two to ten products side by side') and adds the key detail about source pages. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 comparison tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and the comparison behavior. However, it doesn't describe the output format or how the comparison is presented, which an agent might need to know to interpret results. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves some gaps, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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. It explains that record_ids refers to products to compare and that the comparison is field-by-field with source pages. It doesn't detail the format of record_ids, but the schema already specifies an array of strings with min/max items. The description adds meaningful context about what the parameter represents.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two to ten products') and explains the comparison is 'field by field, each value with its source page.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record or search_drinks, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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: when you need to compare multiple products side by side. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_record for a single product. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but exclusions are absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the search spans every open node and that maker names are returned exactly as each source wrote them, a non-obvious behavior. It does not cover output format or error cases, but for a read-style lookup this is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope and ends with a meaningful nuance about source-specific naming.

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?

The core call is understandable, but 0% schema coverage and the absence of an output schema leave important gaps: the `node` parameter is undocumented and the return shape is never stated. An agent could make a basic call but would be guessing about filtering and results.

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 define parameter meaning. It clarifies that `producer` refers to the maker being searched, but it never explains the optional `node` parameter, leaving the agent unsure whether it filters the search and what values it accepts.

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?

States a specific action ('Find a maker and its products') and a clear scope ('across every open node'), plus a distinctive detail about preserving source-written names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target drinks, orders, or records.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when you need a producer and its products across open nodes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the maker/product focus is enough to imply separation from drink/order/record lookups.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('as the record states it') but omits what the tool returns, error handling (e.g., missing record), permissions, or side effects. It does not state whether it modifies anything or if it is safe to call repeatedly. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a clarifying constraint. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without harming brevity. It earns a high score for efficiency, but a small deduction because the parameter explanation is missing.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide sufficient context to call it correctly. It lacks clarity on what record_id means, what the return value looks like, and any error conditions. The description tells what it does but not how to use it effectively, making it incomplete for an agent.

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?

The only parameter, record_id, has no schema description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not clarify what record_id refers to (e.g., product ID, order ID, or internal record ID). 'As the record states it' implies the ID corresponds to a record, but it does not explain how to obtain it or what type of record is expected. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise object ('the maker's or distributor's trade channel to order a product'), and clarifies it is not a consumer channel. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_record (generic retrieval) and find_producer (likely a different lookup). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, such as get_record or find_producer. The only hint is the negative constraint 'Never a consumer channel,' which implies it is for trade channels but does not explain selection criteria or alternatives. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only operation and describes the return contents in detail: fields, source page, reader, state, CUVEE, claim status, and signed JWS. It does not cover error/not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the core action and identifier, then uses semicolons to enumerate the returned contents. No wasted words or repeated schema information.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description gives a solid inventory of returned data. The only notable gap is the lack of record_id format guidance, but the overall tool contract is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It only restates the parameter name ('by record_id') without describing its format, origins, or accepted value types. An agent still has to infer what a valid record_id looks like.

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 verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one product in full'), and a lookup key ('record_id'). It also lists the exact content returned, making it clearly distinct from siblings like search_drinks or list_nodes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a known record_id and need complete product detail. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives, but the 'one product by record_id' framing provides sufficient context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state that, nor does it clarify what 'open node' means, whether there are side effects, or any performance or authorization considerations. The description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is structured poorly by leading with 'countries' when the actual subject is nodes. The front-loading misdirects the agent, and the sentence is not optimally structured for immediate comprehension.

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?

The description lists the attributes returned (door, languages, state, counts), which is useful. However, it does not define what a 'node' is in this domain, what 'open node' means, or the output format (e.g., array, object). Given the lack of output schema and annotations, more context is needed for an agent to interpret the result 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies fields (door, languages, state, counts), so it is not a tautology. However, it opens with 'List the countries on the record' which contradicts the rest of the text about nodes, creating confusion about the actual resource being listed. This ambiguity reduces clarity and prevents a higher score.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like get_record or search_drinks. It neither names alternatives nor describes scenarios that would favor this tool. An agent would have no guidance on selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('record ids with each record's CUVEE') and the cross-node search scope)Skip, but it does not mention pagination, matching semantics, default limit/node behavior, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause adds signal: scope, searchable fields, and return format. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, searchable fields, and return shape well enough to invoke it correctly. It falls slightly short by omitting limit/pagination behavior and explicit sibling routing, but these are secondary for a basic search call.

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?

The schema already documents 'query' and 'node', and the description reinforces 'query' by listing name/style/origin/category and maps category prose like 'ciders' and 'ready-to-drink' to enum values. However, 'limit' is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not clarify how the 'node' parameter interacts with the claim of searching 'across every open country node'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource: 'beers, wines, spirits, ciders and ready-to-drink drinks', and specifies the searchable attributes 'name, style, origin or category'. It also states the scope 'across every open country node' and the return value, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like compare_drinks, find_producer, and get_record.

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 implicit usage context: use this tool when needing to search for drinks by name, style, origin, or category across open country nodes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer its role relative to sibling tools.

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