brewery_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as what a successful response contains, what happens for an unknown ID, or any authentication requirements, so it provides no meaningful transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core operation and its key constraint are stated immediately.

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?

The input side is adequately described for a simple lookup, and annotations cover safety traits. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what a brewery record contains or how errors are surfaced, leaving the return behavior underspecified.

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?

The schema has one required parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic load. "By ID" clarifies that the parameter is a brewery identifier, but it does not specify format, source, or validation constraints. This is minimally helpful but leaves the agent guessing about acceptable ID values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get a brewery by ID." This clearly identifies an ID-based lookup, distinguishing it implicitly from siblings like brewery_search, brewery_list, and brewery_random. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify its relationship to untappd_get_brewery, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"By ID" implies the tool should be used when a brewery identifier is already known, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives for cases where only a name or search term is available. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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