bar_makeable_cocktails

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. Whether substitution, optional ingredients, or partially-stocked items count as 'makeable', whether results are ranked or limited, and whether any permissions are needed are all unstated. 'Currently on the shelf' hints at state-dependence but never explains it.

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 zero padding; the filtering qualifier arrives immediately after the verb. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral gaps, but as pure conciseness it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a state-dependent query tool with an undocumented user scope and no annotations, the description leaves key operational questions (whose shelf, what counts as makeable, result ordering) unanswered.

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 single parameter user_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or explains whose shelf is being evaluated. The phrase 'the shelf' is ambiguous precisely because the scope parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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+resource ('Get cocktails') with a clear qualifying scope ('can be made with ingredients currently on the shelf'), which inherently separates it from bar_list_cocktails and bar_search_cocktails. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 shelf-constrained framing implies when the tool is appropriate (when the user wants drinks they can actually make right now), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the alternatives like bar_list_cocktails or bar_find_gaps. Usage must be inferred from the purpose sentence alone.

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