Search the Pour Picks catalog

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: full-text search over a large catalog, filterable results, and a structured tasting-profile return format with source attribution. It does not detail response shape or ordering, but it is a solid addition.

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 focused sentences pack the key facts: the target resource, the catalog scope, available filters, and return type. No redundant phrasing or filler; the most distinctive detail (full-text search scope) is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with no required parameters and rich schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains what results look like ('structured tasting profiles with source attribution'), which matters because there is no output schema. It could mention ordering or pagination, but the limit parameter in the schema covers the main invocation concern.

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?

The schema already documents all 7 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions the general filter categories—category, price, and proof—without adding new detail beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 ('Full-text search') with a clear resource ('4,700+ ... spirits in the Pour Picks database') and lists the major filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bottle or find_similar, which are narrower lookups or recommendations.

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 this is the tool for broad catalog searching and filtering, but it never explicitly says when an agent should prefer it over get_bottle, find_similar, or get_recommendations. There are clear search semantics, but no exclusions or alternative tool routing.

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