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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description's job is to add return-behavior context, which it does: sort order (pinned first, then most recently edited), folder grouping, and that locked formulas expose only their name. It omits pagination/result limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the usage guidance in the first clause, then two short sentences for listing behavior. Efficient, though the first sentence is dense with multiple conditions packed into one breath.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably (ordering, folders, locked-name-only visibility). It leaves the 'kind' filter and any pagination behavior unaddressed, so it is nearly but not fully complete.

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 only 25% (just 'folder'), so the description should compensate. It maps loosely to three params via 'name, folder or favourite', but never explains the 'kind' enum (perfume vs accord) or the semantics of 'query', leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 ('Lists the formulas on the user's PerfuMate bench') and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it returns the ids the other tools use, implying the get_formula/update_formula relationship. An agent can tell this apart from the many other list_* tools from the text alone.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('when the user asks what formulas they have', 'wants to find one by name, folder or favourite') and a sequencing rule ('before you read or change a formula'). It does not name a competing tool to avoid, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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