cellar-stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the computed metrics and the dimensions a breakdown can take, but says nothing about cost, caching, or whether breakdowns change the return shape.

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, zero filler: the metric list comes first, the enumerated valid values second. Every clause carries information the caller needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the single optional parameter is fully documented. Complete for a one-parameter aggregation tool; only omission is any hint about how breakdowns affect output or performance.

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% but the schema only says 'Breakdown dimension' and declares zero enums; the description supplies the actual valid values (color, country, region, varietal, location, bin, category), which is real information the schema lacks. This meaningfully exceeds the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cellar statistics') and enumerates the metrics returned (total bottles, value, unique wines, breakdowns). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like search-cellar or bottle-details, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'optional breakdowns' implies when to supply group_by versus omitting it, which is implicit usage guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search-cellar for aggregate-style questions.

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