drinking-recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the three-tier urgency ranking (past peak, closing windows, in window) tells the agent how results are ordered. It does not cover pagination or result shape, but an output schema exists for that.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose before the ranking detail and the optional filter. Every clause earns its place.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the purpose, the ranking semantics, and a filter hint. The only minor gap is that the occasion and max_results parameters go unmentioned, but the schema covers them.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description only echoes the color filter and omits occasion and max_results entirely, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get wine drinking recommendations') and even the ordering logic used to rank them. It is clearly distinguishable from lookup siblings like search-cellar or bottle-details, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 when this tool is useful (finding wines to drink now, ranked by urgency) and notes an optional color filter, but it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the intent.

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