beyond-wine

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's omission of behavioral details is acceptable. The description adds no additional traits beyond usage context, which is sufficient 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and immediate use case.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description omits return value hints (example mentions 'beverage profile' but not formal) and does not explain the condensed parameter. With no output schema, more detail is needed for complete understanding.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention slug or condensed at all, leaving the agent to infer from context. This is a significant 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 specific beverage, giving explicit usage examples like 'Tell me about Pet Nat 0.0'. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_beverages and other get_* tools by focusing on a single entity.

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 says 'Use this when the user asks about a specific beverage', providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling context implies search_beverages for broader queries.

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 for safe read. The description adds value by specifying that provenance and version history are included, which is behavioral insight beyond 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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no redundancies. Every word contributes meaning.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter, the description covers the key aspects: what is retrieved (claim), how (by UID), and extra info (provenance, version history). No output schema exists, so the description could elaborate on return structure, but it is sufficient.

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'claim_uid'. The description mentions 'by claim UID' but does not add format, constraints, or examples. Given the parameter's simplicity, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 specifies the action 'retrieve', the resource 'Beyond Wine claim', the identifier 'claim UID', and additional included data 'provenance and version history'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools that return multiple results.

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 usage when a specific claim UID is known and full details are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools like 'search_claims' provides implicit guidance.

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?

Description adds important behavioral details (token bounding, optional includes) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that conveys all key points without 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?

Adequately describes input parameters and expected output for a retrieval tool with no output schema. Could be more precise about output structure but functional.

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 0% schema coverage, the description explains the role of 'topic' and clarifies that 'include' controls optional components (entity summary, claims, graph). The token bounding hint relates to max_tokens, though not explicitly named.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Retrieve', the resource 'token-bounded context bundle for a Beyond Wine topic', and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual entities or graphs.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of 'token-bounded' implies a specific need for compressed context, but alternatives among siblings are not addressed.

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 description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context about returning 'structured data and attached claims' which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, rate limiting, or behavior when entity not 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's primary function with no extraneous words. It is as concise as possible while still being informative.

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 absence of an output schema and three parameters (two required, one enum), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the difference between condensed vs full output, or what constitutes a 'published' entity. The phrase 'structured data and attached claims' is vague without schema details.

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 adds no semantics for any of the three parameters (slug, condensed, entity_type). Parameter names and hints are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for a tool with required enums.

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 states verb (Retrieve) and resource (published Beyond Wine entity) along with specifics (structured data and attached claims). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_beverage or get_producer which target specific entity types, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this generic tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions that might preclude its use (e.g., prerequisites). The sibling tools list suggests a decision context, but the description offers no comparative advice.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description adds the specific 'direct relationship neighbors' context. However, no details on depth, limits, or behavior for invalid entities.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded and concise, but could be more informative without adding significant length.

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 and description does not specify return structure, pagination, or any constraints. The tool retrieves neighbors but omits format and limits, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, and description does not explain what 'slug' or 'entity_type' mean or how they affect the results. The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from schema field names.

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 states the action (retrieve) and resource (direct relationship neighbors) for a specific entity type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_beverage or get_entity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity or list_entities. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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, so the description does not need to emphasize safety. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating 'retrieve', which is consistent but not extra value.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or irrelevant information. Highly efficient.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is retrieved. However, it omits the purpose of the format parameter, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 should compensate by explaining the optional 'format' parameter. It does not mention the parameter or its effect (choosing between json and json-schema output formats), leaving the agent without 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?

Description uses specific verb 'retrieve' and lists concrete resources: ontology, entity types, relationship types, and semantic scales. This clearly defines the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entity or get_graph.

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?

Description implicitly indicates usage for retrieving the ontology structure, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity or search tools. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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 description adds no behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It provides usage context but no details about data returned, permissions, or side effects. Annotations already cover safety, so the description's incremental value is limited.

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 with embedded examples, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it omits parameter details, which could be added concisely.

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, annotations present), the description covers usage well but lacks parameter explanations. It is adequate for a basic tool but incomplete for agents needing parameter semantics.

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%: neither 'slug' nor 'condensed' are described in the schema. The description does not mention any parameter or explain how the tool maps natural language queries to the required 'slug' field. This is a significant 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 is for fetching a specific producer by name, with concrete examples ('Who is Muri?', 'Tell me about Domaine des Grottes'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_producers and other get_* tools which target different entities.

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 says 'Use this when the user asks about a specific producer' and provides query examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context with sibling tools implies search_producers for non-exact queries.

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 provides readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the 'published' filter, but lacks details on pagination behavior, result format, or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description offers minimal added transparency.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It conveys minimal information, so it does not earn its place beyond a minimal statement.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and several sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify output structure, pagination, or how it differs from search tools. The agent lacks critical context for correct 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters. It does not mention required fields, allowed values like 'producer' or 'beverage', or default values (page=1, limit=20). The agent must infer everything from the schema alone.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Beyond Wine entities', with qualifiers 'published' and 'by type'. It distinguishes from sibling search tools (which imply querying) and get tools (single entity). However, it does not explicitly say it returns all entities of a type, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_beverages or get_entity. The agent receives no hints about context or exclusions.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds context about use cases but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or side effects. Adequate but no extra value beyond 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 concise (2 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It is well-structured but sacrifices some completeness by omitting parameter details.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical details such as return format, pagination, and parameter meanings. It is incomplete for an agent to use effectively without prior knowledge.

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 any of the 4 parameters (q, page, limit, category). It briefly mentions filtering by name or category, but does not link to parameter names or provide semantic 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 is for listing, finding, or filtering beverages by name or category. It provides example queries and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_beverage' by implying a search/multi-result use case, though not 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 description gives explicit usage guidance ('Use this when...') and provides specific query examples. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'get_beverage'.

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 description adds the behavioral constraint that only 'published' claims are searched, which is beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not explain pagination behavior or default behavior when no filters are provided. With readOnlyHint already present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys the tool's purpose and key filters without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description lacks essential details like output shape, default behavior, and pagination handling. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 lists four of six parameters (entity_type, entity_slug, claim_type, reliability_class) as filters, providing basic semantics. However, it omits pagination parameters (page, limit) and the word 'or' is ambiguous regarding filter combination. With 0% schema coverage, the compensation is partial.

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 clear verb 'Find' and specifies the resource 'published Beyond Wine claims' with filtering criteria. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_beverages or get_claim by focusing on claims. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_claim or list_entities. No usage scenarios or conditions are mentioned.

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. The description adds filtering capabilities (by name, country, etc.) but does not disclose pagination behavior, result sorting, or what happens on no results. Value added is moderate beyond 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 front-load the core purpose and usage. Every sentence is essential; no filler. Examples are concise and illustrative.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and limited annotation, the description lacks details on return format, pagination semantics, and q vs. specific field behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex search tool.

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 description must compensate. It lists some filterable fields (name, country, city, ingredient, technique) but omits q, page, limit, region. It does not explain what each parameter does or how they interact. Minimal added 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 searches for producers with specific verbs ('list, find, filter') and resources ('producers'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_producer (single) and search_beverages (different entity). Examples reinforce 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?

Description explicitly states when to use it ('when the user asks to list, find, or filter producers by...') and provides good query examples. It does not directly name alternatives but implies context via sibling differentiation.

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