Get wine identity and vintage facts

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds concrete behaviors: 'Unknown fields are omitted' (partial result handling) and 'restricts facts to that vintage' (filtering scope). It also clarifies that prices are not included, which is non-obvious and prevents incorrect expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences carry full content: the first lists the returned info and accepted input forms; the second notes unknown-field omission and the price exclusion with a sibling pointer. No filler, and the scope is front-loaded before the alternative. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential categories of returned data and the input variants. It does not enumerate every possible field, but given the openWorldHint and the absence of an output schema, the summarized list is sufficient for an agent to know what it will get. The alternative routing also covers the most likely separate use case. A slightly higher score would require explicit mention of response structure, but that is not necessary for correct 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%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the base vs full ELID usage and notes that the vintage parameter can override a suffix in elid. This interpretive guidance helps the agent construct valid calls without reading deeply into the schema.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('one wine's catalog identity and vintage fact sheets') and enumerates the types of fields (producer, region, colour, type, classification, LWIN…). It explicitly excludes prices and routes to a sibling tool, distinguishing it from the other ELID tools immediately.

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 how the elid parameter can be a base or full ELID and that a vintage suffix restricts facts to that vintage. It also provides an explicit 'use instead' alternative for prices (elid_search_shop_prices), giving a clear when-not-to-use criterion. The vintage parameter's override semantics are also disclosed.

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