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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context about the database size (1,100+) and that results include tasting profiles and where-to-buy links, but it does not disclose pagination or default ordering behavior. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not deeply informative.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the search domain and size, the second lists filters and return content. No wasted words.

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 should clarify what the agent can expect. It mentions returns (tasting profiles, brew methods, links), which is helpful. However, it does not mention the limit default or that results are capped at 10, nor how results are ordered. For a search tool with 7 optional filters, this leaves some ambiguity.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats some of this information (e.g., category and price filters) without adding new semantics. It does not clarify default values beyond what the schema provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as a search over a curated coffee database, using the specific verb 'Search' and naming the resource. It lists filter categories, making the scope obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_coffee or find_similar, but the general search purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_coffee should be used for fetching a specific coffee, or that find_similar is for similarity searches. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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