get_sake_profile

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

The description discloses that the class is estimated (heuristic) and lists fields the dataset does not provide, preventing invention. Without annotations, it carries the full burden and provides useful transparency, though it could mention permissions or side effects.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary outputs, and includes a helpful clarification about missing dataset fields. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It lists key output components and addresses dataset limitations. It lacks error handling or prerequisites but is adequate for a single-parameter tool.

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 sole parameter brand_id is not explained in the description beyond implying it identifies a sake. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying what brand_id is or how to obtain it.

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 states the tool returns the six-axis flavor profile of a single sake, including an ASCII radar, flavor tags, an estimated class, and popularity rank. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_sake and search_sake by focusing on a single sake's profile.

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 use when needing a single sake's flavor profile, contrasting with sibling tools for comparison or search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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