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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait - token-uid scope enforcement that silently ignores userId - but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape.

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 front-loaded sentences with the scope constraint stated first. Slightly padded by re-listing all seven status enum values that the schema already enumerates.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the definition is adequate. However, with no output schema present, it does not describe the returned item shape or how cursor vs. offset pagination behaves, leaving some gaps an agent might need.

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% and all five parameters (limit, query, cursor, offset, status) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the status enum and the text-query filter but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List bottles in the signed-in user's collection') and pins the scope with 'Always scoped to the token uid'. This clearly separates it from the sibling list_user_bottles, though it stops short of naming that alternative explicitly.

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 caveat 'a userId argument is ignored' is an actionable usage directive that steers the agent away from passing a user identifier, which is the main confusion risk given list_user_bottles exists. It lacks an explicit 'use list_user_bottles for other users' routing sentence, so it falls just short of 5.

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