Read the wines ranked for a dish

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavior beyond the schema: the id/page mutually exclusive modes, the site's wording scale from 'Bon accord' to 'Accord parfait', and the alphabetical ordering that maps dishes to pages.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and is compact overall. The final explanatory clause about alphabetical ordering is slightly redundant with 'alphabetical index' but earns its place by helping an agent reason about page selection.

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 read-only/idempotent profile, the description provides the missing behavioral context: dual id/page modes and the nature of the returned pairings. It does not specify what happens if both or neither parameter is supplied, but that is a minor gap given the surrounding structure.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that 'id' is the number in a dish's address and that 'page' reads the alphabetical index, reinforcing how the two parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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 names a specific action ('Read the wines Supertoinette ranks for one dish') and identifies the exact resource and the id routing. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the recipe-oriented siblings by focusing on wine pairings, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use 'id' versus 'page' and explains where dish identifiers come from in the alphabetical index. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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