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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds that the response is a 'profile' plus 'claim previews' and that profiles lack source lists, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, or auth. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and tool routing. No redundancy. Slightly dense, but every clause serves a distinct routing or behavioral purpose.

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?

No output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does (profile and claim previews, no source lists). Covers the slug-finding prerequisite and downstream claim tools. Missing only the semantics of the 'condensed' parameter.

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 compensate. It explains the semantic meaning of slug (use search_beverages, never invent) but says nothing about the 'condensed' boolean parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both the schema and description. Baseline 3 for partial compensation given the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a published beverage profile with claim previews), and names the sibling tool search_beverages for finding slugs. It's clear what the tool returns, though 'beverage profile' could be more concrete about the domain (e.g., a producer entity with claims).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use search_beverages to find the exact slug, never invent it; verify the produced producer against the question; and use get_claim or search_claims with entity_type=beverage for sourced facts. Names alternatives and conditions, including the constraint that profile previews alone don't contain source lists.

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