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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are restricted to catalog recipes and the result set spans ready drinks plus one/two-ingredients-away matches, which tells the agent what kind of output to expect. It stops short of noting limits or ordering/pagination, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by scope and the one parameter worth calling out. No filler or restated name/title content.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the activation trigger, result scope, and the zero-proof mode. The one gap is that it doesn't clarify the relationship to suggest_next_ingredient for users who are close but not one-or-two away.

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 75% and the schema already documents zero_proof_only and max_missing. The description only echoes those meanings ('one or two ingredients away', zero-proof case) without adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource: find catalog cocktails from a list of bottles/ingredients the user has. It also bounds the scope to 'MixWise catalog recipes' and the one-or-two-ingredients-away case, which cleanly separates it from get_cocktail_recipe (single recipe lookup) and suggest_next_ingredient (gap filling).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user lists bottles or ingredients they have and wants cocktails they can make now'). It also narrows scope to catalog recipes and flags the zero_proof_only scenario, but it never names the sibling tools or states when NOT to use this one versus suggest_next_ingredient.

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