read_guideThe full text of one published Cellarion guide or blog article, by slug (from list_guides). Public website content — quote or summarise freely, and link the public_url when pointing the user to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug from list_guides |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it is public website content, which reinforces safety and clarifies the nature of the output without contradicting 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential tips on usage.
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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and the expected behavior.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug'; the description restates the schema description, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 it reads the full text of a guide/article by slug from list_guides, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_guides.
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?
Explicitly advises to quote or summarise freely and link the public_url, providing clear usage context and telling the agent how to reference the content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: registry search, wine detail, vintage-specific drink windows, similarity recommendations, guide listing, guide reading, and server metadata. No two tools serve the same purpose, and the descriptions clearly indicate when to use each.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_guides, read_guide, search_registry, get_wine, get_source_info, find_similar_wines). 'drink_window_for' is an outlier, using a noun phrase instead of an imperative verb, which introduces a minor inconsistency.
With seven tools, the server is well-scoped and avoids bloat. Each tool provides a distinct capability, and the count is appropriate for a wine registry server covering search, details, drink windows, similar wines, guides, and metadata.
The core registry workflow is well covered: search_registry for identification, get_wine for details, drink_window_for for aging advice, and find_similar_wines for recommendations. However, multiple descriptions reference search_bottles for user-owned bottles, yet that tool is not provided, leaving a notable gap for user-specific queries.