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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: rounding up to bottles/cases, rule-of-thumb basis, no consumption guarantee, and an explicit non-action (does not purchase alcohol). It stops short of describing return shape or units, but that is a minor gap given 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, followed by the important disclaimer. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return burden; it covers rounding and the caveat that results are estimates, which is enough for an agent to use the tool correctly. It could say more about output structure (e.g., itemized bottles/cases) but nothing critical is missing.

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 all five parameters (mix, crowd, hours, guest_count, champagne_toast) are already documented with defaults and enums. The description only references guest count, duration and drink mix generically and adds no syntax or formatting beyond the schema.

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 (estimates) and resource (wedding bar quantities) plus the inputs that drive it. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_budget_estimate or get_cash_gift_suggestion.

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?

Gives implied context (planning-rule-of-thumb estimate, does not purchase alcohol) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_budget_estimate, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 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.