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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context by stating the database scale (4,700+ spirits) and that results include structured tasting profiles with source attribution, which goes beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It leads with the core action and resource, then lists filters, then the return format. Every word serves a purpose, and 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?

Given the high schema coverage, the annotations cover safety, and the description describes the output as structured tasting profiles with attribution, the tool is largely complete. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return being a list of profiles (though plural implies it), and it does not mention pagination or default limits, which are already in the 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%, so every parameter is documented in the input schema. The description only restates the filterable fields (category, price, proof) without adding new semantic detail, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 the tool performs full-text search across a specific database of spirits, and explicitly mentions filters for category, price, and proof. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_similar or compare_bottles by emphasizing its general search nature, making it unambiguous for an agent.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_similar, get_recommendations, or trending_bottles. It is implied that this is the general search entry point, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or conditions for choosing a sibling tool, leaving some inference required.

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