Get bottle details

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

The annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context about the returned record, but it does not cover not-found behavior or exact matching semantics, which would make the behavior fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, lists the key output content, then states the two accepted input forms. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

With no output schema available, the description compensates by enumerating what the detailed record contains. For a single-parameter lookup tool, this is nearly complete; only the missing-record behavior is not addressed, which is a minor gap.

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% — the parameter already documents that it accepts a UUID or a name like 'Eagle Rare 10'. The description mostly restates this, adding no meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies this as retrieving a single bottle's detailed record, naming the resource and its key content: tasting profile, flavor notes, pairings, price, and community ratings. The 'one bottle' wording distinguishes it from search-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent already has a Pour Picks bottle ID or name and needs full details for one bottle. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_bottles for broad lookup or find_similar for recommendations.

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