Get Untappd user check-ins

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is structurally covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those hints: result ordering, the paging loop contract (max_id sourced from a prior response's pagination.max_id), and the default-account fallback when username is omitted. The trailing 'Read-only' mildly repeats the annotation but does not contradict it.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: return fields + ordering, paging mechanics, and username default behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, contains zero filler, and does not duplicate what the schema already states.

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 read-only list tool with four fully documented optional parameters and robust annotations, the description covers what is returned, ordering, paging, and the account default. Since there is no output schema, the exact response envelope is not specified, but the named return fields and the pagination.max_id hint give an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 strong per-parameter docs (compact vs full projection, 1–50 limit, max_id paging semantics, username default), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds one valuable cross-reference the schema lacks: it links max_id to a specific field in the prior response ('the pagination.max_id from a prior call'), connecting request parameter to response shape.

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 ('Get'), resource ('a user's recent check-ins'), and the return fields (beer, rating, comment, venue, toasts/comments). This distinguishes it from siblings such as untappd_user_info (profile), untappd_user_beers (beer history), and untappd_checkin_info (single check-in) without needing to inspect any schema. The ordering note ('most recent first') further pins down behavior.

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 concrete operational guidance: page backwards by echoing 'the pagination.max_id from a prior call', and omit username to use the configured account. This tells an agent how to actually use the tool across calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use this tool versus siblings, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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