Get Cafe Details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' indicates a read-only operation, and the description goes beyond the schema by specifying the output includes a score breakdown and nearby/related cafes. It does not detail error behavior or caching, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is adequate.

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 that states the main action first, then specifies included content. Every part adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately summarizes the response content (record, score breakdown, nearby cafés). However, it doesn't mention if the record is filtered or any limitations, though for a get-by-id this is not a major 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter already has a rich description with an example ('tim-wendelboe-oslo') and a pointer to search_cafes. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve a full curated record for a cafe by id') with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_cafes (search vs. retrieval by id) and score_cafe (retrieval vs. scoring), while enumerating key content (espresso-quality score breakdown, nearby/related cafes).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a cafe id and need detailed information. The schema parameter description adds 'Use search_cafes to find ids,' giving a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or compare against score_cafe or find_espresso_near, leaving some ambiguity.

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