beyond-wine

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the read-only nature, and the description adds usage context but doesn't describe response format or the effect of the condensed parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the usage directive, and includes concrete examples. Every word 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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage but misses parameter detail and return value expectations, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description doesn't explain either parameter. The examples imply slug is a beverage identifier, but condensed is entirely unexplained, leaving a key parameter without meaning.

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 fetches details about a specific beverage using examples like 'Tell me about Pet Nat 0.0', and the focus on 'specific beverage' distinguishes it from search_beverages.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about a specific beverage', which is clear context. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the examples make the intended scope evident.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with 'Retrieve'. The description adds useful context about the response including provenance and version history, beyond what the annotation provides. No contradictions found.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and response context.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with a readOnly annotation, the description sufficiently covers its purpose and return value context (provenance and version history). Minor gaps include lack of error handling or how to discover UIDs, but overall adequate.

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 0%, with no description for claim_uid. The description merely restates 'by claim UID' without explaining how to obtain or format the UID, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 retrieves a single claim by UID, specifying the resource and action. It differentiates from siblings like search_claims by emphasizing single-item retrieval by unique identifier.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have a claim UID to retrieve a specific claim. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or reference to search_claims for finding claims.

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

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description's use of 'Retrieve'. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning 'token-bounded' (indicating max_tokens affects output size) and the optional inclusion of 'claims or graph data', which reveals how the include parameter shapes the response. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling or pagination.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function and key options. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 relatively simple tool (3 params, no output schema), the description provides a high-level understanding of what the context bundle includes, but lacks detail about the return structure or when to prefer this over sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive, especially given the absence of an output 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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It partially compensates by linking 'entity summary' to the 'entity' include option and 'claims or graph data' to the other enum values, and 'token-bounded' clarifies max_tokens. Yet it does not explicitly describe the 'topic' parameter beyond the domain hint, leaving some semantics implicit.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve a token-bounded context bundle for a Beyond Wine topic'. It specifies the resource (context bundle) and scope (topic), and differentiates from siblings by combining entity summary with optional claims or graph data, a unique function among the sibling getters and search tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity or search_claims. The description explains what it does but does not indicate circumstances favoring this tool, such as needing a comprehensive topic overview with multiple data types, or exclusions like when a single entity is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by using 'Retrieve'. It adds that only published profiles are returned and that data includes structured data and attached claims, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose operational behaviors like pagination, error handling, or any prerequisites, so it adds moderate value beyond the annotation.

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 the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds domain clarification about independent businesses, which is relevant but not essential. There is no filler; it is concise and well-structured, though the second sentence could be considered slight extraneous context.

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?

The tool has three parameters, including a 7-value enum and a boolean flag, and no output schema. The description does not explain what condensed means, what entity types are available, or how this tool differs from the specific getters. The lack of usage context and parameter details makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The parameters include an enum for entity_type and a boolean for condensed, but the description gives no semantics for these. With three parameters and no compensation, this is a critical gap.

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 retrieves a published entity profile with structured data and claims, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_beverage or get_producer, so it lacks the sibling distinction needed for a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use get_entity versus the specific sibling getters or list_entities. The note about entities being independent businesses is domain context, not selection guidance, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate tool based on this description.

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

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves 'direct' (one-hop) neighbors and only for entities 'profiled in the knowledge base,' but it does not specify pagination, response format, or error behavior. This adds some context beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It avoids unnecessary detail and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description gives a basic idea but does not explain how the entity is identified (slug/entity_type) or what the returned neighbors look like. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool interacting with a knowledge graph.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'slug' or 'entity_type.' It only implies these together identify an entity. The enum in the schema provides some value, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific action: 'Retrieve direct relationship neighbors' for an entity. It identifies the resource (knowledge graph neighbors) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_entity or get_context by focusing on relationship traversal.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need direct relationship neighbors of an entity. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though sibling tool names hint at other uses.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing what the ontology includes, but it does not disclose return structure or format-dependent behavior beyond that, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists contents. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and what the ontology contains. However, it lacks guidance on the 'format' option and does not describe any output structure, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the 'format' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, even though the schema shows a json/json-schema enum. The schema is self-documenting enough to prevent a 1, but the description adds no semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') naming the resource ('Beyond Wine ontology') and enumerates its contents ('entity types, relationship types, and semantic scales'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_entity or get_graph which target specific entity/graph data.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining the full ontology model, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the profile includes the full published beverage lineup under data.beverages. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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: the first gives usage triggers with examples, the second adds return-content detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains when to use the tool and what the profile contains, but omits parameter semantics (especially 'condensed') and provides only a partial picture of the response structure without an output 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain either the required 'slug' parameter or the optional 'condensed' flag, providing no mapping from user intents to parameter values beyond vague references to a 'specific producer'.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('get'), resource ('producer'), and scope ('specific producer'). It provides concrete example queries that distinguish this lookup tool from sibling search tools like search_producers.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when the user asks about a specific producer', giving clear trigger conditions and examples. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the important behavioral detail that only 'published' profiles are returned, which is a meaningful filter. It also clarifies the scoping to the Beyond Wine knowledge base. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the read-only nature is well covered.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description together with the input schema covers the essential context: what is listed, what filter is required, and basic pagination via defaults and constraints. It lacks explicit mention of return format or ordering, but the tool's complexity is low and the readOnlyHint plus published filter are enough for a solid baseline.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'entity_type' via 'by type' but says nothing about the meaning of 'page' and 'limit' or return value semantics. The schema provides names and constraints, but the description adds no meaningful parameter insight beyond the entity type enum.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('published entity profiles in the Beyond Wine knowledge base'), and a distinguishing scope ('by type'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_entity (single retrieval) and search_beverages (search across content).

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 conveys a clear use case: list all profiles of a given type as opposed to fetching a specific entity or searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'by type' constraint gives sufficient context for when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile; the description adds valuable behavioral details, such as q matching aliases and producer names, and the producer parameter listing a full lineup. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies search semantics.

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 front-loaded usage guidance and concrete examples; every clause earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers key usage scenarios and provides enough context for correct invocation. It omits pagination defaults and return format, but given the simple search nature and lack of output schema, this is adequate.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions, so the description partially compensates by explaining q and producer semantics. However, category, page, and limit are not explained beyond the general mention of category. Pagination behavior is left to inference.

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 uses specific verbs (list, find, filter) for beverages by name, producer, or category, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_beverage and search_producers. The resource and intended action are immediately clear.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when the user asks to list, find, or filter beverages') and provides concrete example queries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is clear enough to avoid confusion with siblings.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds the useful qualifier that only 'published' claims are returned, but does not disclose pagination behavior, how filters combine, or response structure.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence delivers the core information with no wasted words. The key action and resource are front-loaded.

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 search tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main filter dimensions but omits pagination, filter combination logic, and return-value details, leaving moderate 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?

The description names the four filter parameters (entity type, entity slug, claim type, reliability class), partially compensating for 0% schema coverage. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of each or cover page/limit, and the schema's enums already provide some semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('published Beyond Wine claims'), and lists the filter dimensions (entity type, entity slug, claim type, reliability class). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_beverages and search_producers, and from get_claim which retrieves a single claim.

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 implies this tool is for discovering claims when you have filter criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_claim, list_entities, or other search tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already signals a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond that, mentioning filterable attributes but not pagination, result format, or how filters combine. No contradictions with annotations.

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 filler. The description is front-loaded with the core use case and includes illustrative examples, earning its space entirely.

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?

With 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding but fails to explain pagination, parameter interactions, or return shape. It is adequate for simple search scenarios but incomplete for advanced or ambiguous queries.

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 0%, and the description does not map all 8 parameters. It mentions 'name, country, city, ingredient, or technique', but 'name' is not a schema parameter (likely 'q'), and it omits 'region', 'page', and 'limit'. This partial, somewhat misleading mapping does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 searches/list/filters producers, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_producer by focusing on search/filter behavior. Examples of matching user requests reinforce the purpose.

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 provides explicit trigger conditions ('when the user asks to list, find, or filter producers') and concrete example queries. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a search tool.

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