WildAlmonds Wine Weekend

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content structure (guide plus listings with what's on, where, when, and wines where confirmed), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about result size, whether events are filtered or paginated, or what happens when a region has no guide or no confirmed listings.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core resource, with a parenthetical that earns its place by enumerating the listing fields. Dense but not padded; only mild cost is the nested parentheses making it slightly harder to scan.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so at a reasonable level of detail (guide plus verified listings). It is missing edge-case behavior for empty weekends and the relationship to search_events, which keeps it short of complete.

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% and the single region parameter is well documented in the schema, including the list_regions pointer. The description only echoes the region scoping ('for a region') without adding format or fallback meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('this weekend's wine guide for a region') and clarifies the payload is the published guide plus verified event listings. It implicitly separates itself from search_events by scoping to a weekend and bundling the guide, but it never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is left to infer whether this replaces or complements search_events for event lookups, or whether get_winery is needed alongside it; the only routing hint ('Call list_regions for options') lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully lists returned fields and closed status and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explain how partial-name matches are resolved (single vs multiple results), missing wineries, or error behavior.

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 wording, front-loading the purpose and then listing the returned fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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?

For a simple lookup with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and returned data well. It leaves ambiguous-match and error behavior unstated, so it is not fully complete but is adequate.

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%, and the schema already documents partial matching for name and the region slug with a list_regions hint. The description adds only 'by name', which is not materially 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?

States a specific retrieval operation for a single winery by name and enumerates the returned fields. This makes the scope clear enough to distinguish it from event-search and region-list siblings.

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 phrase 'by name' implies when to use it, but the description gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as search_events or list_regions. The schema mentions list_regions only for the region parameter, not for overall tool selection.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and the note that results are slugs tells the agent something about the payload, but there is no mention of ordering, completeness, caching, or whether a fixed catalog is returned.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the useful slug detail in parentheses. No wasted wording; only the missing sibling reference keeps it from being ideal.

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 trivial zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return element type (slugs). A slightly fuller note on the response shape would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema's empty object. Baseline 4 for zero params is arguably met by the schema alone, but the description adds only the slug detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('List the wine regions') and scopes it to what WildAlmonds covers. The parenthetical clarifies the payload is slugs, which distinguishes its role from sibling tools like get_winery or search_events, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 phrase '(slugs for other tools)' signals the intended workflow: call this first to discover valid region identifiers for other calls. It gives clear context but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: results are limited to 'upcoming' events, so past events are excluded. It is silent on what happens when region is omitted (the schema marks all three parameters optional), result ordering, volume or pagination, and whether any lookup is rate limited.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first and the optional filter second. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is marginally adequate but leaves gaps: return shape and ordering are undeclared, and the effect of omitting region is ambiguous given zero required parameters. The 100% schema coverage offsets some of this.

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 parameters are already well documented, including the region slug example and the list_regions pointer. The description only restates the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which the schema already supplies, and adds no meaning about how start_date and end_date interact or what an empty range means.

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 verb and resource ('Search upcoming winery events') plus a scope ('in a region'), so an agent can immediately tell this is an event lookup rather than a winery lookup or a submission. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling get_this_weekend, which is the closest competing tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'optionally filtered by date range' hints that the tool is the general-purpose date-range search, but it never states when to prefer it over get_this_weekend or what to do when no region is supplied. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get the link' usefully implies a read-only lookup with no mutation, but it does not state what the return looks like (a URL string vs. a structured object), whether the link is region-specific, or what happens when region is omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource being fetched is stated immediately. It is efficiently sized, with only a minor lost opportunity to note the intended audience trigger.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential question of what is returned ('the link'). Missing only the edge-case behavior when region is absent, which is a small gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 region parameter already documents its slug format with examples and a pointer to list_regions. The description adds nothing about the region parameter, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns the submission link that wineries use for the weekly events guide. That corrects the misleading tool name (submit_event_info sounds like a write) and makes the actual behavior clear. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, keeping it at 4.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this when a winery asks how to submit an event. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as search_events or get_this_weekend, and no note about when the link is or isn't appropriate.

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