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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the burden is lower; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: zero-result recovery guidance and the requirement to copy the exact returned slug into get_producer. It doesn't mention pagination behavior or the shape of the result list, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded: purpose, disambiguation, failure recovery, then the follow-up call. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 correctly substitutes the key return fact (a slug, plus get_producer's data.beverages lineup) so the agent knows what comes back and what to do with it. The gap is the lack of any note on pagination/limits for a 20-param-capable list call.

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 coverage is 0% for 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it names the facets behind q, country, city, ingredient and technique but never explains region, page, limit, or how q differs from the facet filters. Half the surface area remains undocumented in both schema and text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find producers') and enumerates the searchable facets (name, country, city, ingredient, technique). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_beverages, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 states when to use this vs search_beverages ('this searches producers, not beverage names: use search_beverages for a drink'), names get_producer as the downstream consumer, and gives a recovery path for empty results ('try a shorter producer name or remove extra filters'). That is when/when-not/alternatives all present.

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