Get Wine/Drink Recommendations

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds useful context about the food pairing data source ('Alko official pairing data') and the 33 food categories support, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or return format details beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key parameters, the second adds important context about the food pairing system. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler content.

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 recommendation tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its key features. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't explain what the recommendations look like (e.g., format, fields returned), but this is partially mitigated by the tool's straightforward purpose.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the same parameters (occasion, food pairing, price range, preferences) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get personalized product recommendations') and resources ('wine/drink'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_product (single product) or search_products (unfiltered search). It explicitly mentions the recommendation aspect and personalization criteria.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('personalized product recommendations') and lists specific filtering criteria (occasion, food pairing, price range, preferences). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like search_products for broader searches.

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