cocktail_by_ingredient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Filter' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether results are full records or IDs, whether matching is exact or partial, whether the ingredient is case-sensitive, or how many results are returned.

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 zero wasted words. It states the operation and the input dimension immediately, which is well-suited to a simple one-parameter filter tool.

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?

For a simple filter tool with full schema coverage, the core purpose and parameter are covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain expected return behavior and distinguish this tool from its close siblings; it remains minimally 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Ingredient name.' The description adds examples (Vodka, Gin, Tequila) that clarify the expected value domain, but it does not add format or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Filter') and resource ('cocktails') and names the filtering dimension ('by ingredient'), so the agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similar sibling cocktail_filter_by_ingredient or from the broader cocktail_search, leaving ambiguity when multiple ingredient-based tools exist.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cocktail_search, cocktail_filter_by_category, or cocktail_filter_by_ingredient. It only states the function, so the agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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