Find similar bottles

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

Annotations already convey that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not responsible for safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that scoring is deterministic and explaining exactly which tasting dimensions drive the ranking.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. It defines purpose, ranking criteria, scoring type, and data source in a compact, front-loaded structure that an agent can process quickly.

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 low-complexity tool with two simple parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what input is expected, how results are sorted and ranked, and what data source is involved, leaving little ambiguity for correct selection and 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents bottle_id (UUID or name) and limit (max 15, default 5). The description adds contextual meaning around flavor profile and ranking, but it does not describe parameter-specific behavior beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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?

The tool's purpose is immediately clear: it returns bottles similar in flavor to a given bottle, ranked by shared notes and body/sweetness/char proximity. The title 'Find similar bottles' supplies the explicit verb, and the description's criteria distinguish it from siblings like find_cheaper_alternative or compare_bottles.

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 usage condition clear: you need one bottle_id and want a flavor-similar ranked list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the concrete scoring criteria ('shared flavor notes', 'proximity') provide enough context for an agent to select it over generic or price-based sibling tools.

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