Search new beers near your store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond these: the storeId fallback chain ('Falls back to your configured home store, then your nearest store from your home coordinates') and the enrichment behavior ('enriched with external release dates when recent feed items match'). This extra context helps the agent understand what happens under the hood.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args list, and a Returns line. However, the Args list partially duplicates the schema descriptions, which is slightly redundant. Still, it's efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return value ('New beers currently available in the selected store, enriched with external release dates when recent feed items match'). It also covers parameter fallback behavior and the filtering options. It could be more verbose about the exact fields returned, but for a read-only search tool with strong annotations, 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-described in the JSON schema (e.g., releaseDate accepts 'yyyy-MM-dd or a Norwegian date like "1. april 2026"'). The description's Args section largely duplicates this information without adding new semantics. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Vinmonopolet's current "Nyheter" listing for beers available in one store.' It specifies the resource (Vinmonopolet's Nyheter), the action (search), and the unique scope (store-specific), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like polvenn_search_new_beers (which lacks store filtering) and polvenn_check_store_stock (which checks stock for specific products).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want new beers from a specific store, with fallback logic for store selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, relying instead on the name and sibling context.

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