Side-by-side comparison of two bottles: proof, age, price, flavor profile, shared and distinct tasting notes, and community ratings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bottle_a | Yes | First bottle — UUID or name | |
| bottle_b | Yes | Second bottle — UUID or name |
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 well covered. The description adds useful context about the output scope (shared and distinct tasting notes, community ratings) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like whether bottle lookup is by UUID and name (suggested by schema) or what happens if a bottle is not found. With strong annotations, the absence of such details is acceptable.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the comparison dimensions efficiently. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler. It could be slightly more structured with separators, but it is easy 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?
For a read-only, two-parameter comparison tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of guidance on output format or fallback behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for competent 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%, with both parameters (bottle_a and bottle_b) described as 'UUID or name'. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not specify constraints like whether the two bottles must be distinct or whether name matching is case-insensitive. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('comparison') and resource ('two bottles'), and lists the comparison dimensions (proof, age, price, flavor profile, tasting notes, ratings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_bottle (single bottle) and find_similar (which finds similar bottles rather than comparing two specified ones), though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 description implies usage: when you have two specific bottles and want a side-by-side comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over find_similar or find_cheaper_alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is reasonable but left to inference rather than stated.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: search, get details, compare, find similar, find cheaper, recommend, suggest for tonight, and trending. However, 'find_similar' and 'find_cheaper_alternative' overlap somewhat in that both return similar bottles, though one explicitly filters by price. 'pour_tonight_suggestion' and 'get_recommendations' also both provide recommendations, but differ in input (mood/occasion vs. taste/budget).
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: compare_bottles, find_cheaper_alternative, find_similar, get_bottle, get_recommendations, pour_tonight_suggestion, search_bottles, trending_bottles. The only minor deviation is 'pour_tonight_suggestion' which is a bit more descriptive than the others, but it still fits the pattern.
8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a distinct user need: searching, retrieving details, comparing, finding alternatives, getting recommendations, and seeing trends. No tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The tool surface covers the core discovery and recommendation workflows well: search, get details, compare, find similar/cheaper, get personalized recommendations, and see trends. Minor gaps include no explicit tool for filtering by age or rating, and no way to get a list of all bottles in a category, but these are workable via search_bottles.