Find similar coffees

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the schema: deterministic scoring and ranking based on structured tasting data. This clarifies what the agent can expect without promising anything contradictory.

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 one tightly composed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, states the ranking factors, and then qualifies determinism and data source—all in under 25 words.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, how results are ranked, and that scoring is deterministic. No complexity or safety caveat is left to guesswork.

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 the input schema already documents the 'coffee' and 'limit' parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level context, which is fine because the schema carries the full burden.

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's purpose: find coffees similar to a given one, ranked by shared flavor notes and roast/body/acidity/sweetness proximity. It identifies the specific resource and comparison criteria, distinguishing it from generic search or recommendation tools.

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 phrase 'to a given one' clearly frames when the tool is appropriate: the caller already has a specific coffee in mind and wants similar options. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls just short of the strongest usage guidance.

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