cryptbrew_faq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It tells the agent this is a read-style Q&A tool and where its scope ends, but says nothing about answer format, sourcing, confidence, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence for purpose plus one for routing — every clause earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-param, no-output-schema FAQ tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: purpose, scope, and the key sibling disambiguation. Only the absence of any behavioral note (answer format/sourcing) keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'question' parameter. With zero undocumented parameters and no enum/nesting complexity, the description need not add syntax detail; baseline 4 for a fully-covered single parameter 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?

States a specific verb+resource: answer a Cryptbrew invoicing/product FAQ. It also names the sibling (cryptbrew_lock_info) it should defer to for Lock-only questions, letting an agent distinguish this from that tool without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes Lock-only questions to cryptbrew_lock_info, giving a clear when-not-this-tool condition alongside the implied when-to-use (invoicing/product questions). Nothing is left to inference.

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