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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it promises results come 'read verbatim and dated', 'never from reviews or guesses', and ends with 'Read-only'. It also discloses the returned freshness signal, the menu's last-confirmed date, and canonical citation URLs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by verification, return values, and accepted drink slugs in a logical order. The catalog is long and includes arguably extraneous pour counts, but it is structured and each part serves selection or invocation.

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?

Given two simple parameters and no output schema, the description explains all returned fields (menu items, on-draft flag, last-confirmed date, URLs) and lists accepted drink values. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, and the description adds a current catalog of 24 valid drink slugs and counts, going beyond the schema examples. It does not repeat schema syntax, and the catalog meaningfully helps an agent pick a valid drink parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb-object: 'Find venues whose VERIFIED menu lists a specific non-alcoholic drink', and it names concrete beverage examples. This clearly differentiates the drink-first venue lookup from sibling tools such as get_venue or get_menu.

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 'optionally in one city' and 'omit for every city' guidance makes the scope clear, and the verified-menu emphasis implies this is the tool for drink-specific discovery. However, it never names search_venues or get_menu as alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool.

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