Compare two bottles

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds a concrete behavioral profile by specifying that it produces shared and distinct tasting notes and community ratings, which signals a synthesized comparison rather than a raw record lookup.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence lists all the comparison dimensions without extraneous prose. Every fragment adds useful information for selecting and understanding the tool.

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 two-parameter read-only comparison tool with fully documented inputs and clear output dimensions, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit details about error handling or exact return shape, but that is not essential given the simple scope and annotations.

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%, and both parameters are documented as 'First bottle'/'Second bottle' with UUID or name. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the schema already carries the semantic 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 states a specific action—'side-by-side comparison of two bottles'—with a clear resource and enumerates the comparison dimensions (proof, age, price, flavor profile, ratings). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bottle (single bottle) and find_similar (one-to-many alternatives).

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 makes the intended use clear: comparing exactly two specific bottles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the comparison scope and sibling names provide implied context.

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