bar_search_cocktails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include ingredients, which is useful, but says nothing about matching behavior (substring vs exact), the effect of the default limit, pagination, or error/empty-result handling.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first. Efficient and front-loaded, though very thin overall.

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-shape detail is less critical, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves an agent guessing about result volume (limit/pagination) and match semantics. It is under-specified for a search tool in a 40+ tool namespace.

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% and neither parameter has a description. 'By name' loosely conveys what 'query' accepts, but the 'limit' parameter (default 10) is never explained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (search) and resource (cocktails) plus a scoping constraint ('by name'), which distinguishes it from list-all siblings like bar_list_cocktails. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as bar_get_cocktail (single lookup) or bar_list_cocktails (browse all). The phrase 'by name' hints at the search axis but the agent gets no explicit routing rule.

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