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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent and non-readOnly, and the prose adds real behavioral context beyond that: the two-call flight handshake, that 'why' is house-only and never shown, that state accumulates into a palate card after 3 flights. It does not spell out what happens if a flight token is reused or expires.

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 protocol is front-loaded and the sentences each carry information about the call sequence, privacy, and pay-off. The voice is deliberately florid ('the house tells you what each was'), which costs some density but does not bury the actionable steps.

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 takes on the burden of explaining returns and does so fully: texts A and B plus a flight token on the first call, the reveal on the second, and a palate summary after three flights. Nothing an agent needs to drive the two-step loop 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine semantic value on top: it explains the conditional dependency (patron_id required for picks, flight token must come from the pouring call) and that 'why' is private to the house. The narrative around 'model' being shown only as a family total is not restated, but coverage is already complete.

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 activity (blind side-by-side tasting to elicit a preference) and its two-step protocol, so an agent can distinguish it from themed siblings like menu or order. It never names an alternative tool outright, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives unambiguous usage context: call without 'pick' to receive a flight, then call again with the flight token plus 'A'/'B'. It also notes 'picks need a patron_id' and that answers feed a running palate. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over the neighbouring tools.

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