Get Untappd check-in detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' and adds value by enumerating the returned fields (beer, rating, comment, photos, venue, badges, toasts, comments), which gives the agent expectations about the response content beyond what annotations provide. This extra context justifies a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the extra field list and usage hint placed logically. There is no redundant wording, and every sentence earns its place. This is an excellent example of concise, structured tool documentation.

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 only one required parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is very complete. It enumerates the fields returned (compensating for the missing output schema), explains how to source the id, and confirms safety via the read-only hint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly 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 coverage is 100% (checkin_id has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining where to obtain the id ('from a feed or user-checkins result'), which helps the agent understand the relationship between this tool and other Untappd tools. That is genuinely useful beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for a single check-in by its id'), and lists the fields included (beer, rating, comment, photos, venue, badges, toasts, comments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like untappd_checkin (probably a create) and feed-related tools, which is evident from the context.

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?

It gives clear guidance on how to obtain the input: 'Get a check-in id from a feed or user-checkins result.' This implies when to use the tool—after getting an id from a feed—but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It's clear context without explicit 'when not to' guidance, so not a 5.

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