Get Untappd beer detail

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

The description discloses a behavioral contingency the annotations don't: recent activity is only returned on view:full, so a default compact call silently excludes it. The schema adds depth by explaining this is a server-side drop of the activity block, not a local projection. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) are consistent with the Read-only line, so there is no contradiction.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb-resource-fieldlist sentence and followed by actionable sourcing guidance. The only waste is the trailing Read-only fragment, which merely duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation — a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the enumerated field list substitutes for return-value documentation and tells the agent exactly what it will receive. The view parameter's effect on response shape is fully documented in the schema, and the sourcing instruction closes the loop on the required bid. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly — input source, default behavior, conditional output — is missing.

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 percent, so the bid type/bounds and the view enum with its detailed compact-versus-full explanation already carry the semantic load; the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning the schema lacks by telling the agent to get a bid from untappd_search_beer, grounding the parameter in an agent-reachable source. The recent-activity-on-full note reinforces view semantics already documented in the schema.

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 opening sentence pairs a specific verb and resource — Get full detail for a beer by its Untappd beer id (bid) — and enumerates the returned fields: description, style, ABV, IBU, brewery, rating, check-in count, and recent activity on full view. This distinguishes it from the search sibling, and the instruction to source the bid from untappd_search_beer makes clear this tool resolves a known id rather than performing search.

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 line 'Get a bid from untappd_search_beer' is explicit workflow guidance, telling the agent how to obtain the required bid parameter before calling. It clearly implies the tool's niche — detail lookup for a known id — but never names when-not cases, such as preferring untappd_beer_activity for activity-only needs instead of view:full.

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