Find a cheaper alternative

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the real behavioral substance: results are constrained to same style, similar flavor profile, and lower price, so an agent knows what it is selecting before calling.

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 tightly constructed sentences: first states the functional contract, second gives a relatable use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema metadata.

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, two-parameter list tool with a 100%-covered schema and safe annotations, this description is sufficient. It tells the agent what is returned conceptually and why the tool exists, without needing to describe return fields.

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%, so bottle_id (UUID or name) and limit (default 5, max 10) are fully documented there. The description adds no parameter-specific nuance beyond 'the given bottle,' so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action: identifying bottles in the same style and similar flavor at a lower price than a given bottle. This clearly separates it from siblings like find_similar (no price constraint) and compare_bottles (comparison, not recommendation).

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 a concrete use case ('what tastes like X without the price tag'), which is clear guidance for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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