Firstly, the word 'tautology' has a somewhat different meaning in logic from the way it is used in ordinary English. Its common meaning refers to a needless repetition of words in a sentence, such as "completely unique", or, "4 p.m. in the afternoon". In logic, it refers to a sentence that naively speaking comes out true always and everywhere. Logicians commonly use model theory to account for the truth of sentences, and in the terminology of model theory we would say that a tautology is true in every interpretation, which roughly speaking means it remains true no matter how you swap out the names and predicates that are present in the sentence, as long as you hold the logical constants the same. So, for example, "it is not the case both that Fred is an engineer and Fred is not an engineer" is a tautology because you can swap the name Fred for Jane, or 'engineer' for 'gorilla', or anything else you like, and the sentence remains true. What you cannot swap out are 'not' and 'and' because those are logical constants.
So, although in ordinary English, saying, "This honey is sweet," would probably elicit the response, "Well, duh," in the technical sense, "honey is sweet" is not a tautology because if we swapped 'honey' for 'garlic' it would be false.
That said, your textbook definition, "Tautology: a formula that is always true on any interpretation of its terms and sense experience is not required," should not really refer to sense experience. "A formula that is always true on any interpretation" is better. It is confusing to mention sense experience because 'tautology' has to do with logic not epistemology. A tautology is a tautology no matter how you come to learn it or what you think its truth is grounded in. There are in fact several different accounts of how we know logical truths to be true and some appeal to an empirical basis. Bear in mind also that there are many logics. "P or not P" is a tautology of classical logic but it is not a tautology of intuitionistic logic.
Your textbook definition of a priori is also open to criticism. You give it as "A priori: knowledge which is dependent on the meaning of words, not sense experience." This definition confuses a priority with analyticity. A priority has to do with knowledge. A proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independently of experience or empirical evidence other than whatever experience is necessary to understand the language it is expressed in. Analyticity is concerned with the claim that some propositions are true in virtue of the meanings of their words, or in virtue of linguistic conventions, or in virtue of some terms containing others, or in virtue of the proposition being reducible to a logical truth with the help of definitions. The reason it is common to confuse a priority with analyticity is because the logical positivists proposed to explain away a priori knowledge as nothing more than knowledge of analytic propositions. The logical positivists have gone, but some of their ideas hang around like the unpleasant smell of yesterday's cooking. A priori knowledge, if there is such a thing, is not defined in terms of analytic propositions, if there are such things.
To return to your question. 'Tautology' is a logico-linguistic term, 'a priori' is an epistemological term, and for good measure 'necessary' is a metaphysical term. Be careful not to confuse them. Whether tautologies are knowable a priori will depend on your preferred account of the epistemology of logic. Most people tend to think of logic as knowable a priori, but not all. Whether all a priori knowledge is of tautologies is almost certainly false.
