Search upcoming beers

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so no safety disclaimers are needed. The description adds context about the data being from a live website listing and includes 'current website status' in the returns, providing some behavioral insight beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 a compact paragraph followed by a clear parameter list and a return note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully lists the expected return fields (name, producer, style, ABV, article number, website status). It also covers parameters and purpose. However, it omits any mention of configuration prerequisites or dependencies on other tools, which is a notable gap considering the sibling tools include polvenn_configure and polvenn_validate_config.

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?

Both parameters (style and limit) are fully documented in the input schema with types, defaults, and examples. The tool description essentially restates these, adding only a slightly less detailed example for style. Given the high schema coverage, the description adds minimal additional semantic value, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (Vinmonopolet's 'Kommende nyheter' web listing) and the action ('Search upcoming beer releases'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like polvenn_search_new_beers that target different listings. The verb 'Search' is concrete and the scope is clear.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for finding upcoming beer releases, giving an agent a clear context for when to invoke it. However, it falls short of explicitly naming alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., search_new_beers for current releases), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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