bar_alternatives_for_slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: hard-disqualified picks are surfaced with explanations only when include_strays=True, and on_shelf_only restricts to on-shelf bottles. The verb 'rank' implies a read-only operation, though read-only/non-mutating status is never stated outright, and nothing is said about result size limits beyond top_n.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by the mechanism and then the Args block, so the important information comes first. The 'killer feature' framing is slightly promotional and the Args list restates the schema, but that restatement is justified given 0% schema description coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the description covers the workflow prerequisite, the filtering options, and the strays behavior. The only material gap is that it never states the operation is read-only/non-mutating, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the five parameters is explained, with 'sort' clarified as a 1-based slot index cross-referenced to bar_describe_slots and include_strays explained as surfacing hard-disqualified picks with reasons. A couple of entries ('BA cocktail_id', 'max bottles to return') remain thin, keeping this just below full marks.

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 and resource ('Rank bottles by fit for a recipe's slot') and immediately differentiates itself from sibling slot tools by naming the workflow it consumes (bar_set_slot_meta, bar_set_band_constraint/bar_set_point_constraint). An agent can tell this apart from bar_describe_slots or bar_get_slot_constraints without opening a 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?

It gives a clear precondition: the slot must have been declared via bar_set_slot_meta and its constraints set, which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not name an alternative for the reverse question (e.g., bar_uses_for_bottle) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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