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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it cannot place orders or take payments, profile previews do not contain source lists, a null abv means unknown, and catalogue abv is a number without its source qualifier. These are exactly the operational caveats annotations cannot express.

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 text is a ~300-word block that front-loads scope and refusal boilerplate instead of the tool's function, and repeats itself: 'Do not infer alcohol content from ingredients, fermentation, taste...' is restated near the end as 'Do not infer that alcohol is absent from ingredients or production methods.' Substantial material could be compressed without losing guidance.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers how to source the slug, what the previews do and do not contain, and how to attach citations — enough for correct invocation and downstream citation. The main gap is that 'condensed' is unexplained and the returned profile structure is only loosely sketched.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It handles 'slug' well ('find the exact slug with search_beverages; never invent it'), which is genuinely useful invocation guidance, but the 'condensed' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 does state a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a published beverage profile and claim previews.' It also differentiates from siblings by naming search_beverages (to find the slug) and get_claim/search_claims (to source facts). However, the actual purpose statement is buried mid-way through a long policy preamble rather than front-loaded, so an agent must read past scope and refusal rules before learning what the tool returns.

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 gives explicit when-to-use (individual drink questions, recommendations where declared wording must be checked) and when-not-to-use (excluded categories, purchasing requests, catalogue-wide alcohol guarantees), and names the correct alternatives in each case: search_beverages for the slug, get_claim for source evidence, search_claims with entity_type=beverage. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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