brewery_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the name-matching scope and says nothing about pagination or result limits beyond what the schema's per_page note implies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the tool has no output schema.

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 two simple params, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally serviceable. However, it omits any hint of result shape, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling, which an agent would want for a search tool.

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 50%: per_page carries a max-50 description, but the query parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partly compensates by clarifying that query matches on name, which is meaningful added semantics, but leaves the per_page behavior to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('breweries') plus the match dimension ('by name'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling search-like tools such as untappd_search_brewery or brewery_list, which is why it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus brewery_list, brewery_get, brewery_random, or untappd_search_brewery. The agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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