Cork & Curve wine travel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: one entry per partner, pickup facts we checked, tracked booking link, and empty list when no partner covers the city. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key behavioral details. Every clause earns its place, and the empty-list note is a valuable edge-case disclosure.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the result shape (one entry per partner, empty list) and the verification aspect. It does not detail pagination or sorting, but those are minor given the output schema and annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the notion of 'city coverage' but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('cover'), a resource ('car hire partners'), and a clear scope ('per city'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing verified coverage and tracked booking links. It also clarifies the empty-list behavior, which is a useful semantic detail.

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 implies when to use it: when you need car hire partners that verifiably cover a city, and it notes the read-only nature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the 'read-only' qualifier give enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those annotations by clarifying that the returned slugs are the ones other tools accept, which is important integration context not present in the 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 short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The tool's purpose, return contents, and usage hint are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational guidance: what it returns and when to call it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already explains the optional country filter with an example. The description adds minor context by mentioning country and city slugs, but the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 identifies this as the list of every city the site covers, and specifies that it returns the country slug, city slug, and hub page URL used by other tools. It is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which operate on specific content types rather than city coverage.

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 explicit directive 'Call first when unsure of coverage' tells the agent exactly when to use this tool, positioning it as the discovery/reference step before using other tools. This is strong usage guidance for a simple list tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: each item contains a description, resolved venue ids/page URLs, a citation page, and editorial ranking. It does not contradict 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 dense sentences that front-load the core resource and then add the output shape and ranking. The '(read-only)' parenthetical is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but harmless.

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 read-only content lookup with all-optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the result subject, item fields, and ranking behavior. It does not explain how city/country/query interact or when to select this tool over sibling content tools, which prevents a 5.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the city, limit, query, and country parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning and only loosely maps to the region/city/country filtering, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource: regional signature wines and the producer to visit, plus the item shape and ranking. It lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list' and does not differentiate from siblings, and the tool name 'dishes' sits awkwardly against the wine-focused description.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling tools are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'Signature wines of a region,' leaving the agent to infer when this is the right tool versus experiences, place, or search_places.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses useful behavioral details: result ranking rules, the item fields returned (price, rating, review count, duration), and a tracked book link. This adds operational expectations without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent 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?

Three sentences with no filler. Scope and read-only nature are front-loaded, followed by result contents and ranking behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

With a full output schema, complete annotations, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description's added detail about result fields and ranking makes the tool's behavior clear enough for correct invocation. No critical missing context remains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining that query affects ranking, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the individual parameters.

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 identifies the resource as bookable experiences — wine tours, tastings, cellar visits, and tickets — scoped to a region, and adds that it is read-only. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not name sibling tools, but the category is specific and 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 description gives functional usage context, such as ranking by query relevance when a query is provided and by popularity otherwise, and the resource list implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative sibling tool or when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly reinforces 'read-only' without contradicting them. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that dates are 'resolved' to the next edition and that items include the organiser source URL and citation page.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a short sentence plus one clarifying follow-up. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 read-only list tool with six optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential choices: what the tool returns, what filters are available, and the special 'page to cite' detail. It is complete enough that an agent can confidently select and invoke it without further clarification.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate parameter details. It helpfully summarizes the filter dimensions (city, country, date window, text) but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific resource ('Wine festivals'), a clear verb/action ('Filter'), and a defined output scope ('next resolved dates'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which cover transport, places, dishes, and itineraries rather than festivals.

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 states the primary usage context: this is a read-only wine-festival lookup filterable by city, country, date window, and text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to avoid confusing it with the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'read-only' is consistent; it adds useful behavior beyond annotations: itineraries are editorial, day-by-day, each venue is resolved to structured fields, and an empty list is returned when a city has none. No contradiction.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and then packs in the resolved venue fields and empty-list behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values; it covers the city-scoped behavior, what a venue entry contains, and the empty-case semantics. No essential behavior is missing.

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 100%, so both city and country are already documented; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying the tool is city-scoped. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation burden.

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 identifies a specific resource – editorial day-by-day wine itineraries for a city – and specifies that venues are resolved to id, address, hours and page URL. It is distinguishable from siblings like plan_day or search_places, though it lacks an explicit verb like '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?

The description implies the tool is used when a user wants curated wine itineraries for a city, and notes when the list is empty. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving route selection partly to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds error behavior (returns {error: ...} for malformed/unknown id) and enumerates return content, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction; adds context on failure modes.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates key return fields and error case. Zero fluff; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the expected return fields and the error format. For a simple id-based lookup, it covers all needed operational details. Sibling tools are distinct and the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description need not explain the id parameter further. The description mentions 'by id' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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's function: retrieving one venue in full by id, read-only. It enumerates the specific content (fields, provenance, hours, open_now_utc, booking link, nearby venues) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_places (list) or cities/dishes (other resources).

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 implies usage when you have an id and need full venue details, and the schema explicitly ties id to 'search_places returned'. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, though the sibling list and schema hint at the lookup workflow. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false Brief: description adds valuable behavioral context: stops are checked open on the given date, only best-scored venues are selected, and editorial itinerary titles are included. It does not contradict the annotations, and while it doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior, the safety profile is well covered by 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 dense sentences carry all relevant information without filler. The first sentence front-loads the core operation and read-only nature, then lists filters and output. The second sentence adds an actionable alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys the shape of returned data (venues per slot, bookable experience, editorial itinerary titles) and the key validation rule (venues open on the date). Minor gaps like explicit slot definitions or exact return structure prevent a 5, but the tool is callable from this description alone.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value by naming which parameters act as filters ('neighbourhood, dietary need and price tier') and by tying `date` to the open-check behavior, but it does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Compose a wine day for one city', and details the output: one best-scored open venue per slot, filtered by neighbourhood, dietary need and price tier, plus a bookable experience. It also clearly separates itself from the sibling `itineraries` by saying editorial itineraries are 'the better plan' when one exists.

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 tells the agent when to prefer an alternative: 'which are the better plan when one exists (fetch them with `itineraries`)'. It also states the tool is read-only alerts to side-effect-free use operationally. This gives concrete routing guidance beyond a generic 'use this to plan'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: relevance then editorial score ranking, provenance fields (source URL, checked_on, open_status), hours, citation URL, tracked booking link, a hard limit on results, and the did_you_mean response for unknown cities. This significantly aids the agent in predicting output and edge cases.

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-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists filters and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a 12-parameter search tool.

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?

Given the complexity (12 optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers the purpose, all filter categories, ranking behavior, provenance, limit semantics, and the unknown-city edge case. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing critical is missing. The description is complete for correct invocation.

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 100% and every parameter has a detailed schema description (e.g., city slug, near 'lat,lng', open_at format). The description merely summarizes these filters without adding syntax or additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per rubric, baseline of 3 applies; the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search verified venues (read-only).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like car_hire, stays, and experiences by listing venue-specific filters (kind, cuisine, price tier). An agent can immediately understand what this tool is for without ambiguity.

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 clearly states what it does and enumerates filter options, giving strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as 'place' (likely single-venue lookup) or advise when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate use. Minor gap: no explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it states prices are not returned and must be found on the partner page, and it clarifies the nature of the links (tracked booking links and partner search links). This is not redundant with annotations and helps set agent expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only note, followed by the critical price caveat. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly scannable and 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?

Given no output schema and three parameters, the description communicates the key return contents (listings with links, partner search links) and the price limitation. It does not detail exact response shape or pagination, but the essential information an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is present. The annotations cover safety traits.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'for a city', which the schema already covers. No extra value is provided for country, city, or limit.

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 returns hotels and stay partners for a city, specifies read-only, and enumerates the contents (hotel listings with tracked booking links and partner search links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like car_hire, experiences, or festivals without ambiguity.

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 makes the usage context obvious: use this tool when you need hotel/stay listings for a city. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings. Lacking an explicit 'use X instead' statement keeps it from a 5.

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