Get nearby Untappd check-ins

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' reinforces rather than extends that signal. It adds a useful temporal behavior ('recent', 'right now') but does not disclose response shape, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. With the safety profile covered by annotations, 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 description is compact and front-loaded, stating the core action and location scope in the first clause. The em-dash clarification and optional-radius note add value without bloat, and 'Read-only' is short even if redundant with annotations.

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 simple read-only location query, the description plus the fully documented schema are sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The 'view' parameter already explains the response shape, and the description covers purpose, location, and optional radius. No output schema exists, but the schema's view description compensates.

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, view, limit, and radius. The tool description only mentions lat/lng and radius, duplicating schema content rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('Get recent check-ins') and a precise resource/scope ('near a location (lat/lng)'), and clarifies the intent with 'what people are drinking nearby right now.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like untappd_checkin_info and untappd_activity_feed.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieving recent, location-based check-ins with an optional radius expansion. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'near a location' and 'right now' framing provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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