Trending coffees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description needn't repeat the safety profile. It adds meaningful detail: text goes into catalog popularity fallback when live activity data is unavailable, and the response is labeled with the method used. These are non-obvious traits not present in the schema or 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?

The description is one sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-contains the core logic, quickly includes the fallback behavior, and uses the last clause to set expectations for the response. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, this description covers the central data, the fallback path, and the response label. It does not explicitly state the output shape (e.g., a list), but the start and behavior make that easy for an agent to infer. Minor room for an explicit return-format note, hence not a 5.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema with min, max, and default. The description does not augment the parameter's meaning, and this is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the 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 defines the tool as returning coffees that users have been adding to collections most over the last 30 days, including the fallback behavior. This identifies a specific resource and behavior without tautology. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling options like get_recommendations or what_to_brew, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies the primary use case: retrieving trending coffees. It provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, such as search_coffees or get_recommendations, and does not state when not to use it. The usage is clear from phrasing but left to inference.

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