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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: case- and diacritic-insensitive substring matching, the 'gin' vs 'sloe gin'/'ginger beer' example, result limit of 60, fields returned (name, URL, family, glassware), and catalogue ordering. It does not contradict annotations, and the extra detail is exactly what an agent needs beyond the safety hints.

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 tight three-sentence paragraph: purpose first, then matching details and example, then result shape and alternative. Every sentence adds unique value; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content. It is front-loaded and highly scannable.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description leaves nothing critical unaddressed. It explains input constraints, matching behavior, output limit and structure, ordering, and the key alternative for multi-ingredient use cases. The description is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already covers the 'ingredient' parameter fully (type, examples, minLength, description) but the description enriches it further by explaining the matching semantics (substring, case/diacritic-insensitive), warning about comma-separated lists being treated literally, and clarifying that the parameter is single-valued. This goes well beyond the structured schema, making the parameter behavior unambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Find every cocktail in the catalogue that uses one specific ingredient.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it accepts exactly one ingredient and explicitly contrasts with find_makeable_cocktails for multi-ingredient queries. The substring matching detail and result scope further clarify its niche.

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 explicitly says 'Takes one ingredient only' and directs users to find_makeable_cocktails for multi-ingredient queries, even noting that tool handles near-misses. It also advises using a more specific term when substring matching may cause false positives, giving concrete situational guidance. This exceeds the minimum for when-to-use/alternative clarity.

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