Search the Percolate catalog

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying the curated nature (1,100+ coffees) and the return payload (tasting profiles, brew methods, where-to-buy links), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences lead with the core searching action and then immediately cover filters and results. Every clause adds useful information, with no empty marketing language or redundancy.

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 7-parameter optional search with no output schema, the description successfully communicates scope, fluent filtering, and return value content. It leaves details such as default pagination and sorting to the schema, which is acceptable for a read-only search tool.

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?

The schema already describes 5 of 7 parameters and includes enums for category and roast_level, so the baselines are moderately high. The description adds a concise framing by enumerating the filter dimensions, but it largely repeats enum values and price unit information already present in the schema, providing only minimal extra parameter insight.

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 'Search 1,100+ curated specialty coffees in the Percolate database', naming the verb, resource, and scope precisely. It also lists concrete filter dimensions and return contents, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_coffee or trending_coffees.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: searching the curated Percolate catalog with filters on category, roast, brew method, and price. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so agents are left to infer that more targeted tools like get_recommendations or find_similar are for other cases.

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