Detailed record for one bottle: tasting profile, flavor notes, pairings, price, community ratings. Accepts a Pour Picks bottle ID (UUID) or a bottle name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug_or_id | Yes | Bottle UUID or a name like 'Eagle Rare 10' |
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 value beyond annotations by disclosing exactly what the record contains (tasting, flavors, pairings, price, ratings) and the input flexibility (ID or name). No contradiction with 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 sentences with no filler: the core scoping ('one bottle') is front-loaded, followed by a compact content list and the input contract. 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?
For a one-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, input format, and return contents. Minor gaps: no explicit routing to siblings like search_bottles and no behavior specified for unknown bottles, but the listed record contents adequately substitute for return-value documentation in the absence of an output schema.
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% — the schema already documents slug_or_id as 'Bottle UUID or a name like Eagle Rare 10'. The description's second sentence largely restates this, adding only the 'Pour Picks' brand context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 verb and resource — 'Detailed record for one bottle' — and enumerates the record's contents (tasting profile, flavor notes, pairings, price, community ratings). This unambiguously separates it from siblings like search_bottles (discovery), compare_bottles, and find_similar.
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 establishes a clear usage context: use this when you already have a specific bottle's UUID or name and want its full detail record. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the 'one bottle' scoping plus the accepted input formats give the agent enough context to choose correctly.
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.