recommend_whisky

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral trait: results include credibility and honest declarations ('含可信度与诚实声明'). It does not describe side effects, limitations, or how the knowledge base is consulted, but the tool is clearly a read-only recommender by nature.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, criteria, source, and output traits without 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 3-optional-parameter recommender with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the accepted criteria, the knowledge base, and the nature of the output. It omits details like default behavior with no parameters or exact output structure, but these are not critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with examples. The description only restates the parameters as selection criteria ('预算+口味+场景') and adds no syntax, constraints, or behavioral detail 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('推荐酒款'), a resource ('国威知识库'), and the selection criteria ('预算+口味+场景'). It reads as a recommendation tool distinct from the sibling list/search tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase '按预算+口味+场景' provides clear usage context: the tool is for recommendation based on these three inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_whisky or list_products, so no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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