get_cocktail_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that servings are scaled from 1 to 1000 and that output is structured ingredients and steps. However, it does not mention error cases, unavailable cocktail names, or exact output formatting.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the scaling constraint is presented as a compact, valuable addition.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return structure and edge behavior. It adequately conveys core function and serving range, but gaps remain around valid cocktail names, ingredient/step structure, and error handling.

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 adds meaning for the 'servings' parameter by stating the 1–1000 scaling range, which the schema does not specify. However, it provides no additional meaning for 'cocktail_name' beyond what the property name already implies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('cocktail recipe') and specifies the output ('structured ingredients and steps'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on inventory management and recommendations, and the unique 'recipe' scope makes confusion unlikely.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_cocktails_from_inventory or get_inventory_summary. It states what the tool does but not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it.

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