Sync a user's complete distinct-beers list into the cache

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: offset-paged and resumable, progress persisted between calls, paging halts before the ~100 calls/hour limit or on a 429, and which fields signal that stop. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry. It does not, however, say what happens to previously cached beers on a re-run or whether partial progress can be invalidated, so it falls just short of complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with differentiation, resumability, downstream consumers, and rate-limit behavior — no filler sentences. It is dense to the point of being parenthesis-heavy, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of return semantics, and it names the signals an agent must branch on: another_run_needed, stopped_for_rate_limit, and rate_limit.resume_at. It also names the cache tools it feeds (has_had, has_had_many, not_had), closing the loop on what this sync is for.

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%, so both parameters are already documented — including the 'omit for own account' case, which the description partly repeats. The description does add real meaning for max_pages by tying it to per-call paging and persisted progress ('fetches max_pages per call and persists progress'), but that is a modest increment over the schema baseline.

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 ('Fetch a user's COMPLETE distinct-beers list ... into the cache from user/beers') and enumerates the fields returned (rating, times-had, first/last dates). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling path user/checkins, so an agent can separate it from untappd_sync_checkins without opening 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 positive usage ('cheapest way to get full has-had coverage'), an explicit alternative and why it wins ('unlike user/checkins, it pages fully for any public/friend account'), a re-run loop condition ('run again until another_run_needed is false'), and the default-account case ('Omit username for your own account').

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