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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context by describing what the tool returns (note names, families, colours, fragrance counts), which helps the agent understand the response without opening an output schema.

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?

The description is two tight sentences plus a cross-reference line. The purpose and filters are front-loaded, and there is no filler, though the see-also sentence is dense but necessary for routing.

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 read-only browse tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description covers purpose, filters, sorting, return content, and sibling routing. It lacks details on limit, response_format behavior, and required context parameter, but overall it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 40%, so the description compensates by explaining family as a filter ('e.g. woody, floral, citrus') and sort by popularity or name. It also confirms the return contents (note names, families, colours, counts), though it doesn't clarify limit, response_format, or the required context parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Browse fragrance notes') and immediately names the filterable field and supported sort modes. It also distinguishes itself from note_explore, which handles a single note's profile, so an agent can separate the two without reading schemas.

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?

It explicitly names alternatives: note_explore for a single note's full profile and fragrance_search with the note filter for finding fragrances featuring a note. This tells the agent when to choose notes_list versus siblings, with no inference required.

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