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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the tool cannot place orders or take payments, cannot guarantee zero alcohol, an empty result is not proof of exclusion, results carry a slug for get_producer, and abv values are catalogue numbers lacking the source's qualifier. It also discloses null-means-unknown semantics and the empty-result recovery path.

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 is very long and poorly front-loaded, opening with catalogue scope and refusal policy rather than what the tool does. A large block of alcohol-wording guidance ('0% and 0.0% are different wording...', 'Below 0.5% is an upper-bound declaration...') is really about claim evaluation and belongs with get_claim/search_beverages, not a producer search.

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, 0% param coverage and 8 parameters, the description does a lot: it covers scope, routing to siblings, the slug handoff to get_producer, empty-result recovery, and the alcohol-evidence workflow. Gaps remain around the unmentioned region parameter, pagination, and the shape of returned producer records beyond the slug.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It names five filter fields (name/q, country, city, ingredient, technique), but 'region' is never mentioned despite coexisting with 'country', and page/limit pagination behavior and multi-filter combination logic are unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Find producers by name, country, city, ingredient or technique' — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling: 'This searches producers, not beverage names: use search_beverages for a drink.' That is strong differentiation. However, the purpose statement is buried roughly halfway through a long scope/refusal preamble, so the tool's actual function is not front-loaded.

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 states when to search, when not to (excluded categories such as NA beer, spirits, mocktails, dealcoholized wine — 'an empty search is not how to establish this exclusion'), names the alternative tool (search_beverages) and the follow-up tools (get_producer via the returned slug, get_claim for evidence). Refusal conditions for orders/payments and catalogue-wide no-alcohol guarantees are also spelled out.

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