untappd_get_beer

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. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of auth handling for api_key, rate limits, or what an unknown bid returns — so it neither contradicts nor enriches the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are under-specified.

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 read-only lookup with rich annotations this is close to adequate, but the unexplained api_key parameter and the absence of any return-content hint leave gaps. An agent knows what to call but not fully how to authenticate or what shape the beer record takes.

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 only 50%: 'bid' is documented as 'Beer ID' but 'api_key' has no description at all. The description does not compensate by clarifying that api_key is an authentication credential or that bid must come from a search result, leaving one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 details for a specific beer') on Untappd, which distinguishes it from the generic search sibling by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with untappd_search_beer or untappd_beer_activities, so it stops short of a 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?

The phrase 'for a specific beer' implies a lookup-by-identifier use case versus searching, but the description never names untappd_search_beer as the alternative or states when to prefer it. Usage is inferable only from the tool name.

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