Batch-check many beers against the cache

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint): it explains the tool uses cached data, checks both sources, returns had/not-had with count and date, and flags freshness. 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?

The description is very concise: three sentences with clear front-loading of purpose, then details, then usage guidance. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, return format, prerequisite, and freshness. Minor gap: return structure details slightly vague, but sufficient for typical usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'list of beer ids' for the bids parameter and optional account for username, but does not provide significant extra meaning beyond 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 description clearly states the verb 'cross-check' and resource 'beer ids against a user's cached history', and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing batch capability and no API call.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for checking a whole venue menu and mentions a prerequisite (run untappd_sync_user_beers first). It implies when to use but does not explicitly state alternatives.

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