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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is free. The description still adds real value by disclosing that scoring is deterministic and derived from Percolate's structured tasting data, which tells the agent results are reproducible and explainable.

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 with zero filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the scoring detail follows as support.

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 no output schema, the description does enough by explaining the ranking criteria, so an agent understands the shape of the result. It leaves the exact return structure and limit behavior unstated, which is a minor gap for a low-complexity read tool.

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 100% with both parameters documented (coffee id/name, limit default 5), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by defining what 'similar' means (shared flavor notes plus roast/body/acidity/sweetness proximity), but it adds nothing about the limit or input format beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (coffees) and a specific operation (find ones with a similar profile to a given one), and it even states the ranking basis. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_coffees or get_recommendations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies the trigger (you have one coffee and want analogous ones) but never states when to use this versus compare_coffees, search_coffees, or get_recommendations. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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