Trending bottles

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: the fallback to catalog popularity when live data is unavailable and the promise that the method used is labeled in the response.

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 short sentences carry the full meaning, with the core data source and timeframe stated first. Every sentence contributes: the second sentence is not waste because it discloses important fallback and response-labeling behavior.

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, one-parameter, read-only list tool, the description provides enough to understand what is being returned and what the data represents. It is not a 5 because there is no output schema and the description could have more explicitly described the response as a list of bottles, though that is strongly implied.

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 only parameter, limit, is already fully described in the schema with min, max, and default behavior, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (bottles Pour Picks users add to their cellars) and the time window (last 30 days), making the trending purpose clear. It has a slightly awkward phrasing, but it is still distinguishable from siblings like search_bottles and 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 explains the 30-day live-data window and the fallback to catalog popularity, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_recommendations, find_similar, or pour_tonight_suggestion.

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