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.