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 description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the return format: structured tasting profiles with source attribution. It does not cover pagination or empty-query behavior, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 fluff: the first fronts the core purpose and scope, the second covers filters and return 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 read-only search tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential invocation context and return description. It does not mention sort order or behavior with no query, but schema and annotations fill the remaining practical gaps.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only summarizes filters as category, price (USD), and proof, which adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. 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: full-text search across 4,700+ spirits in the Pour Picks database. It also names the product scope (bourbons, ryes, scotches, other spirits) and return type, clearly distinguishing it from siblings that compare, recommend, or fetch single bottles.

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 makes the intended usage clear: search the database by free text and filter by category, price, and proof. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the search context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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