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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope constraint that results are limited to the public catalog and exclude user collections, which is useful, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite cursor/offset parameters, nor about rate limits or result ordering.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the scope exclusion follows immediately. Every sentence 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?

Without an output schema, the description carries some burden for return expectations, and it only tells the agent what is excluded rather than what a result contains. For a low-complexity read tool with strong annotation coverage this is adequate, but the query-matching semantics and pagination model remain undocumented.

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 coverage is 75% – limit, cursor, and offset are documented in-schema – but the required 'query' parameter has only length constraints and no description. The description does not explain what query terms match against (name, distillery, expression), which is the main semantic gap for this tool.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the public bottle catalog'), and narrows scope with '(expressions and distilleries)'. It is clear what is being searched, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like search_public_bottles, explore_catalog, or lookup_bottle.

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?

"Does not return other users' collections" establishes an implied boundary and tells the agent this is not a personal-collection search. However, no alternative tool is named and no positive condition for choosing this over search_public_bottles or lookup_bottle is given, so usage must be inferred.

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