Search new beers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these by explaining the 'best-effort date filter', the ability to include upcoming releases via 'Kommende nyheter', and the return format ('List of new beers with name, producer, style, ABV, article number, and release date'). This goes further than the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured Args list and Returns line. It is not overly verbose but does repeat parameter information already present in the schema. Still, the structure is clear and scannable, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given that all 7 parameters are optional and the schema fully explains them, and there is no output schema, the description compensates by including a Returns section that lists the output fields. It covers the core functionality well, though it omits potential edge cases, error conditions, or pagination details. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate.

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 every parameter thoroughly. The Args list in the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; in fact, it omits some schema details (e.g., the Norwegian date format for releaseDate). Since the baseline is 3 for full schema coverage, this score 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?

The description opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Search for recently released beers on Vinmonopolet via the official API and/or your external release feed.' This names the verb (search), the resource (recently released beers on Vinmonopolet), and the data sources, distinguishing it from siblings like search_upcoming_beers or search_new_beers_near_store.

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 usage by stating what it searches, but it does not explicitly specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tool names. For example, it doesn't say 'For upcoming beers, use search_upcoming_beers' or 'For store-specific queries, use check_store_stock'.

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