cocktail_random

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name — it does not say what a returned recipe contains, whether the random pick is drawn from a fixed dataset, or whether results can repeat, and the idempotentHint interaction with a random pick is left unclarified.

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 short sentence with the intent front-loaded and no waste. It is appropriately sized for a trivial no-arg fetch, though it stops short of being self-sufficiently informative.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what fields a returned recipe carries (ingredients, measures, instructions), which matters for planning follow-up steps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully specifies the calling contract and the description has no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 and resource: get a random cocktail/drink recipe. It is clearly distinct from cocktail_search or cocktail_get_by_id by the word "random," but it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a random pick rather than a lookup, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not (e.g., "use this instead of cocktail_search when you have no query term"). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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