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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content shape (profile fields plus top fragrances by community score), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, ordering details, or response format. Some value added, but not rich behavioral context.

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, zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing, and the 'See also' clause is compact and scannable.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and which siblings to use instead, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. It could be marginally stronger by noting the response_format tradeoff, but nothing critical 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 coverage is 67%: slug has a description with concrete examples, and context is extensively documented, while response_format is only an enum with a default. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for any of the three parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (perfumer's profile) and enumerates the returned fields (bio, country, house affiliation) plus the ranked fragrance list. It also names the sibling tools (fragrance_search, brand_get) an agent might confuse it with, so the tool is distinguishable 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?

The 'See also' sentence routes the agent to alternatives with clear conditions ('fragrance_search to find more fragrances by this perfumer', 'brand_get if you want the brand they work for'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative-routing context is strong and clearly beyond mere implication.

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