bar_describe_slots

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the per-line output structure (sort index, ingredient, constraint presence), which tells the agent what the read yields, but it is silent on permissions, side effects, and whether the operation is purely read-only. An output schema exists, so some of the return-value detail is redundant with structured data, keeping this at a middle score.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by output detail and the routing hint. The second sentence ('Each line shows...') is slightly detailed but earns its place by describing the return shape. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, output content, and downstream usage well enough for correct invocation. The only real gap is the undefined `cocktail_id` semantics, which the description does not address.

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 0% for the single `cocktail_id` parameter. The description implies the input selects 'a cocktail's ingredient slots' and that the result includes a `slot_sort` identifier, but it never explicitly explains what `cocktail_id` expects or its format. It partially compensates but leaves the lone parameter under-specified.

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 ('List a cocktail's ingredient slots') and details exactly what each returned line contains (sort index, current ingredient, constraint flag). It also distinguishes itself from neighbors by naming bar_alternatives_for_slot and the constraint setters as downstream consumers of the slot index it returns.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow cue: 'Use this to find the right `slot_sort` before calling `bar_alternatives_for_slot` or constraint setters.' That routes the agent to the correct sibling and clarifies the tool's role as a lookup step. It does not state any when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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