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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by explaining the verification semantics (facts_checked vs record_last_updated) and the behavior of verified_partner records (description_by, owner fields). However, it does contradict no annotations, and the description adds useful context beyond annotations, but not everything (e.g., return format, potential errors).

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the primary function and data fields. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations, and every sentence adds meaningful information (verification, citation requirement). No wasted words.

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 single-simple-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: the data scope, verification meaning, and citation instructions. It might be improved by noting the return format (e.g., a JSON object) or error cases (invalid slug), but given the simplicity and annotations, it's 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 description for 'slug' already explains the parameter with an example, providing 100% coverage. The description reinforces the slug source but adds no additional semantics beyond that example. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 full detail for a single winery by slug, listing the specific fields included (tasting fees, hours, varietals, etc.). It also explicitly differentiates from search_wineries by noting the slug comes from search results or a URL, which is a concrete usage scenario.

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 have a slug and need full details) and provides guidance on preferring verified_partner records. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context with sibling tools (search_wineries, list_regions) makes the use case clear enough.

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