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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the search spans all open country nodes, and the return payload is record ids plus each record's CUVEE, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads what is searchable and its scope, the second states the return shape. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return payload (record ids with CUVEE), and the fully covered input schema handles parameters. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling lookup/search tools, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (query, node, limit, category) are already documented, including the category enum and limit bounds. The description restates the query facets and hints at category filtering but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 (Find) and a concrete resource (beers, wines, spirits, ciders, RTDs) and states the searchable facets and scope ('across every open country node'). An agent can tell this is a global drink search, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_record or compare_drinks.

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?

Usage is implied by the search facets and the 'every open country node' scope, so an agent can infer this is the free-text discovery entry point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like compare_drinks or get_record, and no exclusions.

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