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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-modifying operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact fields returned (name, category, glass, instructions, ingredients, measures, image) and sourcing from TheCocktailDB, which is beyond the annotations' scope.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and outcome, and the second provides context (discovery/recommendation) and source. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its 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 random retrieval tool with a single parameter and an output schema (present, though not detailed in the prompt), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and expected output. The context of discovery and source adds completeness without leaving gaps.

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 includes a single 'count' parameter with a description stating it always returns 1 random cocktail. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description already explains the parameter, the main description adds minimal additional meaning beyond listing the returned fields. It reinforces the 'full details' aspect but does not clarify syntax or constraints 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 clearly states the tool returns a random cocktail recipe with full details (name, category, glass, instructions, ingredients, measures, image). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool 'recipes.cocktail.search' (for targeted searching) by highlighting discovery and recommendations, making the purpose 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?

The description indicates the tool is 'great for discovery and recommendations', suggesting its use when a random surprise or general exploration is desired. While it does not explicitly warn against usage (e.g., when a specific cocktail is needed), the sibling 'recipes.cocktail.search' is implicitly the alternative for targeted queries.

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