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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: "Every pick says why (shared notes with a loved perfume, a liked note, fits the season)" tells the agent the output carries per-pick reasoning. It stops short of stating pagination/result-size behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then input dimensions, then the reason output, then routing exclusions with an example. It is dense and every sentence carries information, though the parameter enumeration is long enough to be slightly heavier than needed given the schema already lists the same fields.

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?

For a 13-parameter, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, exclusions, output reasoning and the taste-to-parameter mapping. Return-value detail is legitimately left to the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 13 parameters (enums, limits, locale, cursor) are already documented in the schema. The description enumerates the taste dimensions but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema supplies; the natural-language example implicitly maps to parameters but does not expand their semantics.

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?

Specific verb (recommend) plus resource (perfumes) with an explicit basis: taste inputs like loved/disliked perfumes and liked/avoided notes. It also names the alternatives it is not (search_perfumes, pick_for_occasion, find_gift), so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use when someone says what they enjoy or avoid and wants suggestions") with a concrete example utterance ("I love Delina and vanilla, nothing too sweet, for winter evenings"), and three explicit when-NOT conditions routing to search_perfumes, pick_for_occasion and find_gift. Nothing is left to inference.

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