get_subscription_plansThe three monthly beer subscription tiers with pricing, savings percentage, and included perks. All plans have free delivery and pause-anytime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions free delivery and pause-anytime, which are behavioral traits, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or return format. For a read-only query, this is minimally adequate.
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 sentences with zero waste. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a beneficial detail. Every word 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?
Given the lack of output schema and zero parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main aspects of what the tool returns. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the response format or how to handle errors, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds meaning by listing what the tool returns (pricing, perks, etc.), which is valuable beyond the empty 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 identifies the tool as retrieving the three monthly beer subscription tiers with pricing, savings percentage, and included perks. It specifies the exact resource and details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pricing_and_delivery or get_b2b_wholesale.
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 implies the tool is for monthly subscription plans, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pricing_and_delivery or get_b2b_wholesale. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose covering different aspects: beers, brand, process, pricing, nutrition, recipes, subscriptions, wallet, wholesale, buy link, and waitlist. No two tools overlap significantly.
Most tools use the 'get_' prefix for information retrieval, with 'list_beers' and 'join_waitlist' as slight deviations. However, the pattern is consistent (verb_noun with underscores) and clear.
13 tools is well-scoped for a brewery server, covering all essential aspects without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific need, and none feel superfluous.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: brand info, product details, pricing, ordering, subscriptions, waitlist, wallet, and even recipes and nutrition. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.