Get Untappd brewery detail

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by enumerating the return payload (description, location, type, rating, check-ins, popular beers), and its 'Read-only' statement agrees with the readOnlyHint annotation — 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the primary purpose and field list are front-loaded, followed by the id-source chain and a one-word safety marker. Every sentence earns its place relative to the sibling-heavy context.

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 moderate-complexity tool (2 params, 1 required, no output schema) in a family of 40+ siblings, the description covers what it returns, how to get the id, and that it is safe. The only notable gap is not explicitly routing agents to untappd_brewery_beers when they need the full beer catalog rather than popular beers.

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 100%, with brewery_id and the view enum both fully described, so the baseline is a strong 3. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic beyond the schema: the provenance of brewery_id ('Get an id from untappd_search_brewery'), which tells the agent how to obtain a valid value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail for a brewery by its Untappd brewery id') plus the exact fields returned (description, location, type, rating, total check-ins, popular beers). This distinguishes it from untappd_search_brewery (id lookup) and untappd_brewery_beers (beer list) without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage chain: 'Get an id from untappd_search_brewery' tells the agent the required precondition and where the parameter value comes from. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as untappd_brewery_beers when the full beer list is needed, but the word 'popular' scopes the beers claim.

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