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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and other safety properties, so the description need not cover safety. The description adds that results are 'ranked alternatives based on shared accords and character', which gives some insight into the output relevance mechanism. However, it does not disclose ranking algorithm details or pagination behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is a solid 4.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core function and output, the second provides routing to alternatives. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is read-only and has no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, outcome (ranked alternatives), and alternative tools. The only gap is lack of explicit usage conditions (e.g., when to use this vs. fragrance_compare), but overall it is quite complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters (id, context, and implicitly response_format). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like id or context, and it does not explain the response_format parameter or its effect. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Find fragrances with similar accord profiles to a given fragrance.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming fragrance_get and fragrance_search as alternatives. Clear and specific.

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?

The description provides clear context by describing what the tool does, and the 'See also' section names specific alternatives for different tasks (fragrance_get for full profile, fragrance_search for manual exploration). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when the source fragrance ID is unknown or when a user wants exact matches).

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