get_distillery

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that the tool returns a comprehensive profile with several named content areas, which is useful. It does not disclose output formatting, permissions, or data caveats, but for a simple lookup tool the described behavior is broadly clear.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and the key content categories front-loaded. Everything earns its place; no redundant 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 tool has a single documented parameter and no annotations. The description tells the agent what kind of data to expect, but because there is no output schema it leaves the exact return structure unspecified, and it does not point to siblings for routing. This is 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 coverage is 100%: the single 'id' parameter is already documented with a clear description and examples ('daqin / laizhou'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('查' / query) and a specific resource ('某家国产威士忌酒厂的完整档案' — a single domestic whisky distillery's complete profile), and enumerates what the profile contains (region, process, terroir, products, credibility). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_distilleries (all distilleries) and get_flavor_profile (one dimension).

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 intended use is implied: when an agent needs the complete archive for one distillery rather than a list or a single flavor profile. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling tools or exclude alternatives, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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