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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it discloses the return shape (title, type, link per locale) and the citing use case, and it notes the per-locale nature of results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 resource and what it returns, then usage, then exclusions — a logical order. The sentences are long and list-heavy, but nearly every clause (categories, example queries, sibling routing) earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, and the return values documented by an output schema, this description supplies exactly the missing layer: what the tool finds, when to reach for it, and which siblings to use instead.

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% with enum and range constraints already documented for type, limit, cursor and locale, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the guide categories that map to the type enum and adds only marginal meaning (alternatives guides compare famous perfumes across houses) beyond the schema text.

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 (find/search) and resource (10ML perfume guides and articles) and enumerates the guide sub-types it covers. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (get_perfume, explain_note), so an agent can separate it from the other read tools 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('a source to cite', 'a deeper read') with concrete example queries, plus explicit when-not-to-use routing to get_perfume and explain_note. Nothing about selection 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.