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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: case- and diacritic-insensitive matching, exact-match-first then substring fallback, and the return contract (one cocktail object or an { error } object). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the primary function and return contents, the second explains matching behavior and errors, and the third gives usage guidance. All sentences earn their place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description is fully self-contained. It specifies the exact return fields, the error format, and the alternative tool to use, making it complete despite lacking an output schema.

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 'name' parameter with descriptions, examples, and guidance. The description adds extra nuance about case/diacritic insensitivity and the substring fallback, enhancing understanding. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the added semantics justify a 4.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full recipe for one cocktail by name and enumerates the recipe content (ingredients, steps, garnish, glassware, family, URL, media appearances). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'by name' and directing ambiguous cases to search_cocktails.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you have a specific drink name' and when not to use it, recommending search_cocktails for ambiguous names or lists. It also clarifies the matching fallback, giving complete usage context.

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