Dial in this coffee

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

The annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: if curated Percolate recipes aren't available, it falls back to a roast-based starting point. This conditional behavior is exactly the kind of nuance an agent would not otherwise know.

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 text is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose and details immediately, and the parenthetical adds concrete recipe fields without extra prose. The optional scoping clause earns its place. There is no repetition or filler.

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?

For a read-only tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the important behavior: what guidance is returned, the fallback when curated data is unavailable, and an optional filter. A tiny bit more explicit return-structure detail could push it higher, but overall it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 already 100%, with both coffee and brew_method described clearly. The description adds only light extra context by saying the request can be 'scoped to your brew method' and by listing recipe fields like ratio and temperature; this is helpful but not necessary to understand the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Brew guidance for a specific coffee' — and states what the result includes: curated recipes from the Percolate catalog (ratio, temperature, grind) or a roast-based starting point. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_coffees or get_coffee, which focus on finding or describing coffee, not brewing instructions.

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 makes it clear when to use the tool: once the agent has a specific coffee and wants brew guidance, optionally scoped to a brew method. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X if you have no coffee selected,' but the provided context is sufficient to route the call correctly.

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