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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the 'full catalog recipe, including measures and steps,' but with an output schema present this is largely duplicative. No rate limits, auth, or not-found behavior are disclosed.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded and the return content follows with zero filler.

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 a single required param, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key trigger context. It could be more complete by clarifying name-vs-slug resolution or fallback behavior when no match is found.

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% and the single 'slug_or_name' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example. The description adds no syntax, slug-format, or matching guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieve the full recipe for one cocktail by name. It implicitly separates itself from sibling discovery tools (find_cocktails_from_bottles, suggest_next_ingredient) by scoping to a single known cocktail, but never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

"Use this when the user asks how to make a specific cocktail by name, or picks one from MixWise results" gives a clear triggering condition. No explicit when-not or named alternative is provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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