brewery_random

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. Nonetheless it adds nothing beyond them: not whether results are sampled with or without replacement, whether repeated calls return the same or different breweries, or anything about the response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise. Brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a random brewery record looks like and whether sampling repeats across calls. For a randomness tool where non-determinism matters, silence on that is a real gap.

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 single `size` parameter is fully described in the schema (range 1-50, default 1), so the description has no gap to compensate for and adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage, with the description silent on the parameter.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('breweries') with a scope qualifier ('random'), which is enough to distinguish it from brewery_search, brewery_list, and brewery_get by inference. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must reason on its own that brewery_search is for querying and this is for sampling.

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