Search Curated Cafes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context: the database is 'curated', results are 'scored', and sorted by espresso-quality score descending. It doesn't mention pagination or result format, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 moderately complex search tool with 6 parameters but no output schema or annotations, the description plus full schema descriptions provide a complete picture: what is searched, the filter fields, and the result ordering. It lacks explicit mention of pagination/limit, but the schema's default handles that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter names (city, country, roaster, min_score) but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. It also says 'by name' though there is no explicit 'name' parameter, potentially confusing the query parameter.

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 tool searches a curated specialty coffee cafe database by multiple filters (city, country, roaster, min score) and returns scored results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cafe_details (specific details) and find_espresso_near (location-based).

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 usage by listing searchable fields and result ordering, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'for a specific cafe's details, use get_cafe_details.'

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