Get nearby Untappd check-ins

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

The description repeats the read-only annotation and adds that results are 'recent' and 'right now,' which hints at the live, non-idempotent nature of the data. It does not add operational details like auth requirements, rate limits, ordering, or response size; since annotations already cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 core description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, location scope, live freshness, and optional radius widening. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds no new information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 five-parameter tool, completeness is mostly carried by the annotations and the fully descriptive input schema, including the view parameter's explanation of compact vs. full response shapes. The description is not burdened with re-documenting parameters and is sufficient for safe invocation, though it lacks explicit alternative routing and operational details like auth or rate limits.

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%, with detailed descriptions for lat/lng ranges, the view enum's response shapes, the limit default, and radius defaults. The description adds only a minor reinforcement by saying 'near a location (lat/lng)' and 'Optionally widen the search radius,' so it provides no substantial 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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Get recent check-ins near a location (lat/lng)'—and clarifies the real-world intent with 'what people are drinking nearby right now.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like untappd_user_checkins, untappd_trending, or untappd_activity_feed by anchoring the tool to lat/lng proximity.

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 tool is for location-scoped, current check-ins and mentions that the search radius can be widened, which gives some usage context. However, it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this over untappd_trending or untappd_activity_feed, so the when-to-use guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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