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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: what the profile payload contains and that the featured fragrances are ranked by community score. It does not mention pagination or result-count limits, which keeps it short of 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?

Purpose and payload are front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a compact format hint and a routing line. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to carry return-shape information, and it does name the profile fields and the ranked list of fragrances. It does not describe the markdown vs json rendering difference for `response_format`, a minor gap for a read-only 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%, and the schema itself fully documents `note` (with slug examples) and `context` (with word-count and person constraints). The description only echoes the slug examples and says nothing about `context` or `response_format`, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (a note's profile), then enumerates returned fields (family, description, origin, extraction method) and the secondary payload (top fragrances sorted by community score). This clearly separates it from notes_list (browsing) and fragrance_search (finding fragrances), so an agent can route 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 input format guidance ('Use the note slug, e.g. oud, bergamot, iris') and a See-also block naming two concrete alternatives with the condition that selects each one. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both spelled out.

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