search_by_ingredient

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns cocktail names and thumbnails but does not mention whether it supports partial matches, case sensitivity, or any rate limits. The lack of behavioral context leaves the agent guessing.

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 concise with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simple schema (single parameter) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format beyond 'names and thumbnails' or mention pagination or limits. For a search tool, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in all contexts.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the parameter is an ingredient name. No constraints or examples are given.

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 clearly states the tool finds cocktails by ingredient and returns names and thumbnails. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'filter_cocktails' and 'search_cocktail' by focusing on a single ingredient, but could be more specific about the exact scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'filter_cocktails' (which may allow multiple filters) or 'search_cocktail' (which may search by name). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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