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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explaining the drink window stages and the meaning of empty results (no curated window exists yet). It provides guidance to reason from grape/region/structure, which is helpful for agent decision-making. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, immediately followed by usage scenarios and edge-case behavior. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no filler.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the output format (young, peak, late maturity, current status) and handles the empty-result case. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for both wine_id and vintage (including that omitting vintage returns all curated vintages). The description reinforces this but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 tool provides sommelier-curated drink windows for registry wines, detailing per vintage stages (young, peak, late maturity) and current status. It includes example queries like 'when should I drink <wine> <vintage>', making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools such as find_similar_wines or get_wine.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for 'when should I drink' questions, aging queries, or buy-now-drink-later advice. It also clarifies that only sommelier-reviewed vintages are returned and advises how to handle empty results. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the context and sibling tool list provide sufficient differentiation.

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