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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful behavioral signal—that pairings are 'validés par la maison' (validated by the house)—which implies curated, reliable recommendations. However, it does not disclose what happens for unrecognized dishes, whether multiple cuvées may be returned, or any error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a brief qualifier about validation. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: input (a dish) and implied output (a recommended cuvée). It does not mention edge cases or return behavior beyond the singular 'une cuvée', but this is sufficient for the tool's simplicity; a brief note on no-match behavior would make it 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 description coverage is 100%, as the 'dish' parameter already includes examples like 'couscous', 'huîtres', and 'gigot d'agneau'. The description's phrase 'pour un plat donné' adds no significant semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb ('Recommande') and resource ('une cuvée Maison CHAPE') for a given dish, making the tool's function immediately clear. The scope ('accords validés par la maison') distinguishes it from siblings like get_brand, list_ranges, and where_to_buy, which serve different wine-related purposes.

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 'pour un plat donné' provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when a user needs a wine pairing for a specific dish. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tool names make the distinction evident enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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